Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

John Feffer: The Yes Men Rule Top
The bottle looks beautiful. It sports an old-fashioned spring-top stopper. The red, diamond-shaped label features an elegant font. From a distance, the silhouetted landscape on the label looks exotic. It is, like all fine gourmet water, "bottled at source." Even the French name of the water suggests elegance: B'eau Pal . But wait: B'eau Pal? That sounds rather familiar. You look at the label more carefully. The top of the label reads: "25 years of pollution." The picture on the label isn't an exotic location after all. It's...the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India that poisoned a half a million people and killed thousands back in 1984 when it accidentally released tons of methyl isocyanate. B'eau Pal is the work of the Yes Men, the dynamic duo of disinformation. Five years ago, one of the pair, Andy Bichlbaum, appeared on BBC as a spokesman for Dow Chemical, which now owns Union Carbide, to announce that his company would provide $12 billion in medical care for the 120,000 victims of the Bhopal calamity and fully clean up the site. Dow lost $2 billion in market value in 20 minutes. That's how long it took before the hoax was exposed. "We demonstrated what would happen if Dow did do the right thing in Bhopal," Bichlbaum told Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) senior analyst Mark Engler in Pranksters Fixing the World . "What happened? The stock market punished Dow. And if it had really happened, the stock market would have kept punishing Dow. The guy who made the decision would have lost his job. Or he would have been sued by the shareholders, which happens." The Yes Men's point: The heads of major corporations won't suddenly do the right thing even if someone -- somehow, somewhere, some day -- manages to reveal to them the errors of their ways. Now five years later, Dow blathers on about the importance of clean water even as it does nothing for the residents of Bhopal, who are suffering from a drought. To catch the attention of all those who have forgotten about Bhopal -- virtually everyone except the people of Bhopal and a handful of dedicated activists -- the Yes Men created B'eau Pal, a critique wrapped in a jest and shrouded in faux-corporate hype. With their spoofs of the World Bank, fast food restaurants, and Exxon Mobil, the Yes Men are culture jammers par excellence. Their altered advertisements, mock press conferences, and off-kilter conference presentations are delightful inversions of corporate propaganda. They interrupt life's regularly scheduled programming to bring us these important announcements. They treat corporate reality in the same way that hackers approach websites or Marcel Duchamp approached the Mona Lisa. They are, in other words, the ultimate Lords of Misrule. During the Middle Ages, at the end of the Christmas holiday, came Twelfth Night, a tradition dating back to the Saturnalia of the Roman age. On this one night, under the guidance of a specially selected Lord of Misrule, the world turned upside down. Men become women, beggars became kings, prostitutes became queens, jesters became judges. In this topsy-turvy world, the community indulged in fantasies and tolerated transgressions. Everyone drank a lot and let off steam. Indeed, because it was more a safety valve than a way of imagining alternative futures, Twelfth Night ultimately reinforced the status quo. Nevertheless, the tradition has spawned satirists, surrealists, and subversives of all varieties. As the latest Lords of Misrule, the Yes Men aim to change the rules of the game. They're not satisfied with an annual flouting of tradition. They're not interested in turning poisoned water into a high-end beverage as a one-off prank. They want to continually bring the high low and the low high, smothering the corporate elite in their own puffery and amplifying the voices of the victims. This is deadly serious stuff. But remember: If you can't laugh, don't bother to join their revolution. Cross-posted from Foreign Policy In Focus , where you can read the full post. To subscribe to FPIF's e-zine World Beat, click here .
 
Rachael Chong: Start-up Capital for For-Profit Social Entrepreneurs - Where the heck is it? Part 1. Top
Last week, Echoing Green President Cheryl Dorsey was named one of US News and World Report's "America's Best Leaders" for her important work breathing life into both nonprofit and for-profit, start-up social entrepreneurs. Since 1987, Echoing Green has awarded more than $27 million in start-up capital to over 450 social entrepreneurs worldwide. Ashoka , which put social entrepreneurship on the map in 1981, has invested in over 2,000 social entrepreneurs; and since 1992, Investor's Circle , an angel network of social investors, has facilitated the flow of over $133 million into more than 200 social mission companies. While impressive, the cumulative amount invested in start-up social entrepreneurs pales in comparison to the $1.6 billion that went into US seed and early stage investments in just the third quarter of this year in this slouched economy. Put another way, about 10 times more money was invested in regular start-ups in just this third quarter than in the 28 years that Ashoka has been funding social entrepreneurs. With all the recent attention given to social entrepreneurs, when will we actually begin to see an acceptable level of investment directed towards these leaders of social change? It's old news now, but effecting social change and turning a profit are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, in many ways, the for-profit structure is better suited to making sure that social impact is achieved most effectively. The pressure to earn a return for your investors results in tough and often good business decisions. Yet, frustratingly, traditional notions of for-profit and not-for-profit are deeply rooted and all too often reflect an unwillingness of key players to embrace new perspectives. A clear example of this was the decision made earlier this year by President Obama's newly established Office of Social Innovation to exclude for-profit social mission companies from federal funding through this Office. It's unclear how the Office can aim to support "social innovation" while estranging some of the most innovative ideas simply because they lack the increasingly antiquated 501c3 non-profit status. The exclusion of for-profits is even more perplexing when you consider that advisors to the Office during its formation included well-known champions of for-profit social enterprise such as Echoing Green's Cheryl Dorsey, Howard Buffett, and Ethos Water co-founder Jonathan Greenblatt (Ethos Water was sold to Starbucks in 2005 for $8 million). By NOT supporting for-profit social entrepreneurs, the Office of Social Innovation missed an important opportunity to guide funding and support towards the best social enterprises that are measured not by their poorly-defined legal status but rather by the by the impact they make. Prior to the White House Office of Social Innovation's decision that it wasn't ready to fund for-profit social ventures, Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen and Vanessa Kirsch and Kim Syman of New Profit Inc . forcefully articulated to Huffington Post readers why "breaking down the antiquated assumption that all social innovation is the province of the non-profit sector" is critical. It's painful that the White House Office of Social Innovation passed up the chance to bet on a winning strategy - our socially innovative entrepreneurs - when the government is struggling to rectify our broken economy and failing social systems, namely education and healthcare. But don't fret, social entrepreneurs are showing us that very little can keep them down. As they work on bettering our world, we need to figure out how to empower these hidden heroes. How does a for-profit social entrepreneur find the start-up capital to turn a potential world-changing idea into reality? And if they still can't find funding, what are some good bootstrapping tips to get through the start-up phase? For those wondering why social entrepreneurs should be given special treatment over any other entrepreneurs, consider one key point: a social entrepreneur strives to create a positive externality that cannot be quantified in simple dollars and cents. While a traditional entrepreneur looks to create wealth and may or may not change the world in doing so, a social entrepreneur purposefully uses her business as a vehicle for effecting social change. In light of our current economic situation, spiraling fiscal deficits, and overstretched social safety net, there is no better time for social entrepreneurs (and potential social entrepreneurs) to be encouraged and cultivated. Moreover, at a time when the government is struggling to support traditional businesses and industries that have failed, shouldn't we be looking to support innovative and non-traditional ventures? Let's not allow another missed opportunity. Invest in start-up, for-profit social entrepreneurs! Social entrepreneurs need like-minded social investors that evaluate a company's social mission alongside their prospects for revenue generation. Without more social investors, we are hampering the growth of social ventures that could be the answer to many of our public problems at a time when the government is struggling to provide its own solutions. We need more funds like Echoing Green, Ashoka and Investor's Circle to take notice of a growing and vibrant social enterprise movement. Money needs to be invested in start-up social enterprise not just for the aspiring social entrepreneurs of today, but so that the next generation of social entrepreneurs can thrive. We certainly should not make it easy to get funded simply because someone has an idea to make the world a better place, but it certainly shouldn't be more difficult for a for-profit social mission business to get funded than a traditional one. In my next post, I will share some resources for start-up social entrepreneurs (both nonprofit and for-profit). Please help me compile this list by emailing me at rachael [at] Catchafire [dot] org or by commenting below.
 
Jesse Jenkins: "Clean Energy Jobs" Bill's Clean Energy Investments a Fraction of Expert Recommendations Top
The latest draft of the Kerry-Boxer "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" would invest less than $10 billion of the bill's nearly $80 billion in annual cap and trade allowance revenue in clean energy technology, assuming EPA-projected allowance prices ( note: all figures in 2009 constant dollars ). Over a range of likely allowance prices , the bill's clean energy investments could total as little as $8.6 billion and as much as $15.4 billion annually, a fraction of the at least $30-80 billion annually advocated by the Breakthrough Institute and an investment level dwarfed by the $44-66 billion annually China plans to invest in clean energy industries, infrastructure and technology over the next ten years (see graphic below). Investments in the kind of clean energy research and development critical to make clean energy cheap and develop the low-cost, commercial clean energy technologies needed to drive deep emissions cuts and secure America's energy independence at an affordable cost will receive just $1.2-2.2 billion annually, over a range of likely allowance prices. That's just $200 million more than the House-passed Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (ACES) would invest in R&D at EPA-projected allowance prices. While this is a (very) small step in the right direction, the clean energy R&D investments in Kerry-Boxer still fall far short of filling the massive energy innovation gap and would boost R&D spending by as little as one-tenth of the $15 billion annually advocated by President Barack Obama - as well as a broad range of energy innovation experts, including a recent report by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way . Funding for R&D under CEJAPA will be about a quarter to half as much as investments currently being made by the economic stimulus package, ARRA. With more revenue devoted to ensuring deficit neutrality in the Senate bill , total investments in clean energy technology, broadly defined, are actually $1.2 billion less in Kerry-Boxer than in Waxman-Markey, at EPA-projected prices. As the graphics below illustrate, the Kerry-Boxer climate and energy bill does not invest nearly as much as numerous experts have deemed necessary to make clean energy cheap and put us on the path to the clean energy economy, of which President Obama so eloquently speaks . Nor will this level of investment be sufficient to keep the U.S. competitive with Asian and European competitors , particularly China , who are surging past the United States with major direct investments to support their emerging clean energy technologies and industries. The first graph focuses on investments in clean energy R&D, only. The second depicts investments in clean energy technology, broadly defined. How do you think this draft of CEJAPA stacks up? (click any of these to enlarge...) By Jesse Jenkins and Yael Borofsky, originally at the Breakthrough Institute Sources and Notes: [1] See "Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill Allowance Allocation Breakdown," Breakthrough Institute (Oct. 26, 2009). [2] See "Investing in the Next Generation of Energy Technologies," WhiteHouse.gov. President Obama pledges to "Invest $150 billion over ten years in energy research and development to transition to a clean energy economy." [3] See "Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy," Breakthrough Institute and Third Way (Sept. 2009) [4] See "34 Nobel Prize Winners Write President Obama Urging Support for Clean Energy R&D," Breakthrough Institute (July 2009) [5] See "Top Energy Scientists Call for $30 Bi Annual Investment in Clean Energy," Breakthrough Institute (Dec. 2007). Call for $30 billion in clean energy technology RD&D investments [6] See "Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes: A Step toward America's Energy Sustainability," Brookings Institution (Feb., 2009). [7] See "Budget and Performance," U.S. Department of Energy. [8] See "Detailed Summary of Energy Investments in Stimulus," Breakthrough Institute (Feb. 2009). [9] See "R&D in the FY2009 Budget," American Association for the Advancement of Science (March 2009). [10] See "New Apollo Program," Apollo Alliance (March 2009). [11] See "Fast, Clean, & Cheap: Cutting Global Warming's Gordian Knot," Harvard Law and Policy Review. Breakthrough Institute (Jan. 2008). [12] See "China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race," Breakthrough Institute (July 2009) More on Technology
 
John Brown: A Modest Proposal: Make the Pentagon Our Very Own Ministry of Culture! Top
During the U.S. presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden team announced it would would "expand cultural and arts exchanges throughout the world." And Michelle Obama recently stated that the "spouses of world leaders forge bonds by sharing the arts ... It is a form of diplomacy in which we can all take part.'" But these words, despite their honorable intentions, have not resulted in much noticeable action. The White House and the State Department seem -- understandably -- too busy with problems ranging from Iran nukes to global warming to worry about the government supporting concerts, exhibits, or poetry readings overseas. (The position of Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, part of the Department's public diplomacy operation, is still vacant ). Given this dire situation, at least according to some culture vultures, something urgent must be done support US cultural diplomacy -- narrowly defined, U.S. government support for the presentation and promotion of American culture overseas. This urgent need, arguably, is vital to the national interest because culture, no matter how you define it, counts more than ever in international relations. "Globalization, it turns out, has only intensified, not diminished, cultural differences among nations," says the New York Times . And the U.S., even if we Americans think people from elsewhere should like us --- or should be like us -- still has a lot of cultural "explaining" to do to citizens of other countries, many of whom are concerned about American cultural imperialism . Even Hollywood and McDonald's haven't succeeded in meeting this challenge. Some would say they've made it even worse. As for non-business organizations picking up the cultural ball, listen to the words (true, not universally shared by the US arts community) of Michael Kaiser , President of the Kennedy Center: [W]hile some American embassies abroad have been active in bringing American artists and arts groups to 'their' countries in recent years, this is still a very minor activity of the Department of State. But does traditional cultural diplomacy work? ... Does sending a symphony orchestra to play for a thousand of the most powerful people in the capital of another nation truly affect the way our nation is viewed? As the Obama administration tries to rebuild America's image abroad, do we need to send dance companies and theater companies abroad? My response ... is no. Given this rampant lack of support for cultural diplomacy, both inside and outside of government, what is to be done, as Lenin asked? Thinking "outside the box," may I suggest that we make the Pentagon our very own Ministry of Culture. Yes, the Pentagon. After all, it's not an urban legend that there are more members of military bands than diplomats serving overseas !
 
Bladeless Fan Invented: James Dyson Explains How 'Air Multiplier' Fan Works Top
A fan with no blades? Sounds impossible, but when coming from the innovating mind of James Dyson (of the nifty, newfangled vacuum cleaners and hand dryers), maybe it's not so impossible. Then again, maybe that's why Dyson is calling his newest creation the Dyson Air Multiplier instead of the Dyson fan.
 
Michelle Obama In Glamour Dishes On "Cute" Men, Mentors And Her Signature Style Top
With men, don't be swayed by "cute": "Cute' good. But cute only lasts for so long, and then it's, Who are you as a person? Don't look at the bankbook or the title. Look at the heart. Look at the soul...When you're dating a man, you should always feel good...You shouldn't be in a relationship with somebody who doesn't make you completely happy and make you feel whole." The First Lady's entire interview appears in our December issue, out next week; in it, she salutes the 11 other Women of the Year winners, who will be honored at Carnegie Hall November 9. More on Michelle Obama Style
 
Afghan Police: 7 Killed In Attack On UN In Kabul Top
KABUL — The United Nations says six of its staff members are dead after an early morning attack on a guest house in the Afghan capital of Kabul. U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said the world body has confirmed six deaths among its workers and that nine others are injured. Edwards says the house was on fire and that officials are still trying to account for a couple of other workers who were housed there. He did not know their nationalities but said they were non-Afghans. Afghan police earlier said seven people died in the attack. A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack. Edwards said, "This has clearly been a very serious incident for us. We've not had an incident like this in the past." More on Afghanistan
 
GMAC Asks For $2.8 Billion More In Taxpayer Money Top
The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into the Detroit company, on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008, these people said. The latest infusion would come in the form of preferred stock. The government's 35.4% stake in the company could increase if existing shares eventually are converted into common equity. More on Banks
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)