December 4, 2009 – A member of a medical marijuana group in Victoria has been arrested for allegedly making cookies, massage oil and other products from marijuana following a raid that could have implications for similar groups.

Thursday’s bust was sparked by a complaint about the smell coming from a makeshift bakery in a one-bedroom apartment in Victoria, according to Ted Smith, head of Victoria’s Cannabis Buyers Club, which rents the apartment.

Victoria police confirmed the raid took place but released no other details.

One man was arrested and Smith said he too expected to be charged.

Smith said his group, which has 3,000 members, has used marijuana to bake cookies and make massage oil and other products in the apartment for the past two years without a problem.

Health Canada allows people suffering from debilitating illnesses to have access to marijuana for medical purposes. They can get the marijuana through Health Canada or they can get permission to grow it themselves.

But Smith said there is a contradiction in the law, which allows the designated users to smoke marijuana but prohibits them from turning it into any other product.

Seeking city’s help
“If you take legally grown cannabis, or Health Canada’s and make it into one of these products, you’ve actually made an illegal extract,” he said.

Smith said he was found not guilty on a similar charge in 2007.

“We were successful in court, beating those charges, so we are going to use this unfortunate opportunity to point out the fatal flaw in Health Canada’s programs.”

The charge makes all medical marijuana groups vulnerable, Smith said.

He said his group would call on the City of Victoria to help legitimize the club by issuing it a permit or making a representation in any court proceedings. Source.

A Review of the Weeks News

Conflicting cost figures of healthcare reform…NIH Approves 13 Embryonic Stem Cell Lines for Harvesting…Remembering Dr. Ed Thompson…and more

Download- Listen Download MP3

Introduction:

I’ve always had a problem with the way that we Americans think politically about scale, especially the conventional wisdom that local government is somehow inherently better or more democratic than national government because it’s closer to you. This is a rather problematic belief; local government can be just as dominated by local elites as national politics is by national elites, and the lower profile can actually make local politics less transparent than national politics (thought experiment: how many of you can name your local justices of the peace, or could give an explanation of the platform of the current incumbent?).

But worse of all of our beliefs about scale and politics is the idea that local government is somehow inherently non-partisan, that “there’s no Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole.”

Because the truth is that, in a democratic government, ideology is everywhere.  There really are progressive and conservative ways to fill in potholes, run public schools, and provide transportation and other social services, and unless we approach local politics with that in mind, it’s very easy to allow conservative methods to become dominant.

Ideology at Work:

The idea that local government is apolitical really derives from a false conception of what local governments do, and the good government belief that people of all ideological lines want to be good public stewards – without recognizing that ideological disagreements about what government should and should do shape how people think a good public steward should operate.

Ideology thus seeps into local politics in several ways:

• Forms and Levels of Public Service:

To begin with, progressives and conservatives disagree about what forms of services the public sector should provide, and how much in services it should provide.  The conservative vision of government is largely one of a “night watchman” state – the public sector provides primarily public safety and property protection services, and the rest is provided by the private sector. The conservative vision also emphasizes as little taxation as possible as needed to fund said limited services, and that taxation should harm property as little as possible.

The progressive vision of government emphasizes an activist government that provides public infrastructure, public goods like education, public utilities, and social services to people in need of help. It also emphasizes a broad tax base and a progressive structure of taxation, so that people pay what they can afford to pay. Moreover, the progressive vision also includes a generally higher level of services – schools should be well-funded, public transportation should be abundant, not the bare minimum, and social services should be generous enough to make a real difference in people’s lives.

These are areas where ideological conflict is absolutely likely to occur. You see it all the time in fights over local tax and bond measures – the same conservative arguments that government is inefficient and wasteful and that taxes are always bad get trotted out no matter whether the issue is paving a street or universal health care, and progressives need to respond in turn with the argument that government makes people’s lives better.

• Distribution of Public Services:

The history of segregation in America should be an instant sign that the distribution of public services matter deeply.  The local funding of education through property taxes (and a complementary real estate market based on perceived quality of education), for example, has a powerful effect on the racial and class distribution of housing and education – and this can call into being a powerful politics of defending property values against a dangerous other, but often disguised by public professions of conservative beliefs in decentralization of government.  Similar effects can be found in transportation and other areas of infrastructure.

Likewise, it has long been a commonplace observation in political science that political pressure groups from higher socioeconomic status groups are more successful in reaping disproportionate shares of public benefits; communities of educated professionals are better able to keep themselves informed on local politics, are more practiced in forming political action committees and other pressure organizations, can raise more money to reward or punish elected officials (especially when the higher turnout rates of more affluent populations is taken into account), and can more easily turn to the courts or the media to challenge the government.

To progressives, therefore, one of the objectives of local government should be to distribute public services in a redistributive fashion, ensuring for example that schools in poor neighborhoods are equally funded to those in wealthier areas, that all areas receive the same relative level of service in terms of infrastructure, maintenance and repair, and the like.

• Delivery Structure:

The structure by which public services are delivered is where one finds the “Republican” and “Democratic” ways to fill a pothole. To conservatives, road maintenance is best done by privatizing the roads, and letting the free markets forces push the new owners of the private roads to improve their new property. Lest you scoff that local governments would never let ideology push them to such an extent, there are already privately-operated toll highways operating in Indiana, Virginia, Texas, and other states.

It can also be dealt with by letting out government contracts to private firms, which has often been the preferred choice of moderates, especially in regards to public works and similar construction projects. However, this method also has an ideological stance that it takes in regards to what roles the public sector should take, the efficiency of private corporations, and the relationship between the state and the free market. Even when contracting is taken as a mainstream approach, conflict breaks out over whether local governments should hire the cheapest possible contractor, regardless of how they pay and treat their workers, or whether there should be some sort of standards and regulations, whether it’s prevailing wage or living wage statutes or something else.

It can also be dealt with by creating a Department of Public Works and hiring public employees to build and repair roads. The direct provision of public services, especially in areas in which the public might be in competition with private corporations (public utilities being a good example), immediately creates ideological disagreement:  conservatives will always hold that the public sector should not be doing anything that the inherently more efficient private sector should do, and progressives will generally respond that public/private competition counteracts the negative impact of private monopolies. Finally, even when direct provision of services (sanitation, police and fire, etc.) has a political consensus, there will still be conflict over whether said public employees should be union or non-union.

• Priorities Are Ideological:
  

Finally, political priorities are inherently ideological. One of the major themes in the 2009 Santa Barbara city elections by the “Preserve Our Santa Barbara” PAC was that progressives had cut public safety positions in favor of “non-critical” areas like social services for the poor. This is hardly uncommon. In general, we can speak of a general model of conservative priorities for local government that emphasize subsidies and tax breaks for businesses and an unlimited budget for public safety (law and order being the local equivalent for “national security,” and the local police and fire budgets the equivalent of the Pentagon’s ever-increasing appropriations).

By contrast, progressive local priorities tend to emphasize increased provision of affordable housing, public education, and other social services that are intended to include otherwise excluded communities within the circumference of the commonwealth, and in general work to redistribute resources to the less well-off.

Progressive Local Government:

If we accept that local government is just as ideological as any other, then an outline of a model of progressive local government can be seen. This model begins with a commitment to progressive taxation and redistributive public services as a means to reduce economic inequality and combat poverty. These services, especially in the realms of transportation, housing, education, and jobs, which all combine to shape the socioeconomic structure of a community, should work to ensure that people can afford to live close to where they work, earn a living wage that would enable this to happen, and make use of sustainable and inexpensive mass transit.

At the same time, progressive government should also pursue a collaborative approach with public employee unions, one of the few other groups in the political process who have a vested interest in creating a progressive and redistributive approach to local government. In this fashion, we can construct a kind of “municipal social democracy,” where the interests of public employee unions, progressive groups, and working families are united in a single drive to create a sustainable and employment focused method of development that emphasizes a high-wage, high consumption society, rather than a race to the bottom to court businesses.

Conclusion:

In the end, we must always remember that political ideology is both horizontal, in the sense that the progressive movement pursues similar objectives whether it’s in California or New York, but also vertical, in that the same desire for a more just society drives political objectives whether it’s at the local, state, national, or international level.

Guest Commentary by Avis A. Jones-DeWeever, Ph.D.

Twenty years ago, hip hop pioneers Public Enemy decried the perpetuation of decades of exploitive cinema in their now classic, Burn Hollywood Burn!   Though many things have changed over the years, current events in the world of cinematic arts prove that many others remain same.

Today, Oscar buzz abounds surrounding the performances of comedianne turned dramatic actress, Mo’Nique as well as long-time Hollywood fixture, Sandra Bullock.  Their polar opposite depictions of motherhood in Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire and The Blind Side, initially appear to be worlds apart.  One is the story of how severe physical, mental, and sexual abuse fails to derail the loving spirit and aspirations of one “precious” soul.  The other depicts the guts and determination of a brash, yet loveable white woman who opens up her privileged world to a destitute stranger across the color line.  Although each have earned high marks from critics and audiences alike, the two films are seemingly worlds apart but for one disturbing commonality—the all too familiar Hollywood depiction of dysfunctional Black motherhood.   

Why is it that American cinema seems completely incapable of displaying a mothering experience congruent with my own?  The multiple generations of love, support, inexhaustible work, wisdom and sacrifice that has been the norm in my life as well as in the lives of countless others is somehow more rare than wizards, werewolves, and celestial beings on the silver screen.   Even the most “inspiring” of tales, perhaps a category to which both The Blind Side and Precious aspires, can at best display a protagonist who perseveres and achieves in spite of Black mothering, rather than because of it.

Take two of my most beloved movies, each, coincidently, starring the brilliant and talented actors, Laurence Fishburne and Angela Bassett.  In both the 2006 hit film, Akeelah and the Bee and the 1991 John Singleton breakout movie, Boyz-N-the Hood, Black mothering is, at best, portrayed as bad mothering-“lite.”   Boyz-N-the-Hood begins when Tre’s highly educated, professional and accomplished mother abruptly gives up on raising her son by dropping him off, unannounced, at his father’s house to stay for good.    While Akeelah’s mother makes it her mission to aggressively stand in the way of the expanded development of her child’s academic capabilities by, of all things, discouraging spelling bee participation!  Her anti-academic behavior is so deeply in-grained that the dramatic climax of the film is achieved when mom is reluctantly talked out of pulling her daughter off the stage of the State Spelling Bee already in progress!  And to think—comparatively speaking, this is “good” Black mothering by typical Hollywood standards.

More common than not, Black mothers are nothing more than loud talking, gum smacking, side-hip baby carryin’ balls of dysfunction.    Or are at best, not even Black women at all, but instead, are Black men dawning fat suits and wigs.  As the song goes, “For what they play Aunt Jemima is the perfect term—even if now she got a perm!”   

Yes, it’s true.  Our mammy, jezebel, and sapphire roots are showing, despite our aggressive desires to cover them up through the now-trendy, self-congratulatory post-racial narrative.  

How far have we really come when the continual perpetuation of the Reagan-era welfare queen mythology is now perfectly timed to appear at a theatre near you shortly before discussions surrounding the reauthorization of welfare reform are set to begin?  

How far have we really come when one of Halle Berry’s two crack-addict depictions on her way to Superstardom is now retold, this time in feel-good form, with the added bonus of being based on real events?

Compelling as they are, these films and others of their ilk are not the only images of Black mothering that should be given the green-light for production.  Nor should they be the only type of stories starring Black actors that receive serious consideration for Academy Awards.   This all-too common scenario is insulting at best, or evidence of down-right racist misogyny at worst in terms of Hollywood’s one-note fixation on the perpetuation of stereotypical notions of who and what Black women are in our most intimate of spaces—that of mothering our children.

 Of course, there are some notable exceptions to this rule.  Last year’s Secret Life of Bees was a rare gem, even depicting caring, protective Black mothering in the nurturing of a white girl in need of good female influences.   And though snubbed by the Academy, by business standards, the film was a resounding success, grossing more than three times the production costs of the film.  Clearly, there is a market for this type of work.  Too bad Hollywood too often fails to get the memo.

I must admit, even when Hollywood gets it wrong, it is still possible to leave the theatre with an appreciation for stellar acting performances, compelling drama, and recognizing some virtue in attempting to bring to light uncomfortable situations that are far too often swept under the rug.  But when virtually the only images of Black mothering that is packaged, sold, and absorbed on the world’s stage are stories that have at their center perceptions of the most brutal of social pathologies, the residual effects cannot help but be damaging. 

Given this long-standing reality, is it any wonder that today the most popular Google image of our First Lady is one that horrifically defiles her face to animalistic form?  And is it any wonder that when I ask my thirteen year-old son and his friends to recall just one image of positive Black mothering they have seen on film in their lifetimes aside from The Secret Life of Bees, the only response I get is deep reflection and dead silence?

 It is not.

Other stories are out there and they must be told.  But until they are, you’ll find me discovering more self-affirming ways to spend my entertainment dollar, chanting Burn Hollywood Burn all the way out of this box office madness.

Avis A. Jones-DeWeever, Ph.D. is the Director of the National Council of Negro Women’s Research, Public Policy, and Information Center. The RPPI Center is a research/action institute which seeks to inform, catalyze and mobilize African American women for change in both the policy arena and throughout the broader cultural dynamic.

Why is Computer Science Education Important?

• It exposes students to critical thinking
• It is essential for success in the digital age
• Too few students are exposed to opportunities presented by computer science

via CSEdWeek.org.

When I read this article in this morning’s Atlanta Journal Constitution, I was amazed.  I was glad to find the more complete version at the Washington Post web site.  A new report was just released, “one of the most comprehensive studies to date of how low-income and minority students fare in college.”

Fewer than one-third of all freshmen entering two-year institutions nationwide attained completion — either through a certificate, an associate’s degree or transfer to a four-year college — within four years, according to the research. The success rate was lower, 24 percent, for underrepresented minorities, identified as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans; it was higher, 38 percent, for other students.

via Report shows wide disparity in college achievement – washingtonpost.com.

I’m on the advisory board for a local community college (a two year “Technical College” in Georgia), and it’s my understanding that most “certificates” are less than two year degrees — more like 18 or even 6 month programs.  Only 1/3 of students who enter community college even complete that? We lose 2/3 of all students who enter community college?

The study found that four year schools do better, though the majority of the at-risk kids still don’t finish:

The analysis, released Thursday, found that about 45 percent of low-income and underrepresented minority students entering as freshmen in 1999 had received bachelor’s degrees six years later at the colleges studied, compared with 57 percent of other students.

Community colleges have many more students than four year colleges, so that’s the really alarming figure.  I had no idea that community colleges lose 76% of their low-income and underrepresented minority students.  There’s been a push to recruit computer science students from community colleges, since community colleges have many more students and a much more diverse student body.  This report says that the majority of these students won’t be going on to four year schools, or even completing the simplest certificate.

Is the problem money?  Do students run out of money and have to quit?  The article says that students who get Pell Grants (funding for low-income students) complete community college at a 32% rate — better than without the support, still worse than the higher-income and majority students.  That suggests that money helps, but the majority of students are bailing for other reasons.  Figuring out those other reasons is pretty important, if we believe that American competitiveness relies on more students going beyond secondary education.

December 4, 2009
Denver CO

The debate on the Senate version of health reform is now in full swing. Huge cuts in Medicare, huge increases in people eligible for Medicaid, mandated coverages and guaranteed issue, blah, blah, blah — and just about everyone that has a intellectually pure gene in their body is asking: “Is their enough money in the galaxy to pay for this?” (to quote a colleague of mine), and “Will any of this do anything at all to control the ever increasing trend in medical costs?”

In a column dated 12/3/09 in Kaiser Health News, author Joseph Capretta offers this:

Most analysts agree that what’s needed to address the cost challenge is real change in the way hospitals and doctors are organized and deliver care to patients. There’s abundant evidence that health care is needlessly expensive in many settings and regions. But getting at the inefficiency is much easier said than done. Indeed, the crucial question in the entire reform debate has always been this: what process has the best chance of bringing about continual improvement in the efficiency and quality of patient care?

Easier said than done, indeed! But is the answer to continue to allow a structure and system to perpetuate that contributes to medical cost increases that’s three times the rate of inflation the answer?

The true purpose behind these legislative efforts is finally being talked about on the public airwaves, and not just by talk show hosts: this edition of health reform is an ideological effort to place a large proportion of the public in the voter client camps of politicians, afraid of what will happen to their benefits if they were to vote those politicians out of office.

So what is an alternative? As this blog has posited in previous posts, the “man behind the curtain” in medical inflation that pulls all strings is the fee for service business, complicated and enhanced by governmental mandates on benefits. This is complicated by the fact that most Americans receive their health care coverage through 3rd party payer arrangements — employers, government — and therefore have literally no idea what (1) the care the demand and are allowing actually costs; and (2) what their healthcare coverage (ie. insurance) costs.

Capretta goes on:

Whenever Congress is in a budget crunch, the preferred route to savings is indiscriminate provider payment reductions. Politicians don’t want to be forced to pick winners and losers among their hospitals and physician groups. It is much easier to pass equal cuts for all licensed providers, no matter how well or badly they treat their patients. That’s been the history of Medicare and Medicaid for forty years, and there’s no reason to expect cost-control driven by the federal government will ever be any different.

The alternative, of course, is a decentralized process, where cost-conscious consumers choose from insurers and delivery systems that are competing on price and quality. The government can and should play an important oversight role in such a reformed system, much as it does in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

Exactly — the only real way of returning cost control to any semblance of normalcy is to place decisions for care into the hands of consumers using the tired and true method of the market, which is really saying the patient/consumer decides directly on what, why, and how much care to receive.

This cannot happen overnight or with the wave of a policy wand. To do less, however, will, as Capretta remarks, make matters worse.

R Allan Jensen

Civic Exchange is an independent, not-for-profit, public policy think-tank in Hong Kong established with the mission to: promote civic education, public awareness, and participation in governance by strengthening civic participation in public life; undertake research and development in economics, social and political policies and practices to help shape the breadth and depth of public policy debate; and integrating skills and experience across various disciplines, including academia, business, politics, finance, technology, and the not-for-profit sector. 

Current projects include: political reform studies covering Hong Kong, China and Asia; environmental and sustainable development research; energy, climate and corporate social responsibility; land policy, Hong Kong’s budget and green taxation

Internship Description for 2010

The intern will undertake summer-long research project in an area of importance to the organization.  She will be expected to write and present a research paper, with potential for publication. The intern will also have the opportunity to join conferences and participate in seminars. 

Desired Qualifications

Students from all fields of study are encouraged to apply.

The ideal candidate is intellectually mature, works independently, and takes initiative. 

Chinese language skills are not required. Strong literacy/writing skills in English are required.

This is pretty frightening.

Recent legislation passed in Spain has removed protections of due process, freedom of speech, etc., for, ostensibly, websites that encourage file sharing or other such offenses.  It goes so far as to allow their version of the United States RIAA, the SGAE, can force websites and other outlets to shut down without any sort of a court order, hearing, or any other protection normally taken for granted in free nations.  The SGAE simply has to present an argument to the Minister of Culture that the outlet *can* or *may* be used to share multimedia illicitly.  The Ministry then has the ability to shut it down at their request without any sort of court injunction or legal recourse on the part of the target.

The argument will be made that this is necessary to halt file sharing, which claims of its harmfulness are dubious in and of themselves, but it’s frightening to think of the possibilities here.  The people of Spain have had a back door opened to having not only a government entity but a private guild  have the ability to shut them down at will.

Now I’m not saying Spain is on the verge of returning to it’s (relatively recent) fascist past, but laws like this have almost always led to very bad consequences ever since the advent of modern governments over 2,000 years ago.

From Gizmodo.

December 3, 2009 – Marijuana is California’s largest agricultural commodity with $14 billion in sales yearly, distancing itself from the state’s second largest—milk and cream—which bring in $7.3 billion a year. But California’s coffers only receive a fraction of the marijuana sales, $200 million coming from the sale of medical marijuana. That could all change with Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s (D-San Francisco) Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390).

Since February, when the bill was introduced, it has made little headway in the Legislature. But in October, a hearing on the bill was held by the Public Safety Committee; marking the first time a legislative committee held a hearing on marijuana legalization.

AB 390 would create a system that would regulate marijuana much like alcohol is regulated. Those over the age of 21 could purchase pot from vendors with licenses to do so. The state’s Legislative Analyst and the Board of Equalization have estimated that pot sales could bring up to $1.3 billion in revenue yearly. That number is based off a proposed $50-per-oz. levy placed on marijuana purchases and sales tax.

With a projected deficit of $20 billion facing the state next fiscal year, sources of guaranteed revenue are needed. But there are those that believe that the social issues legalizing pot could have far outweigh any economic benefits.

“Why add another addictive element to our society? I don’t think we should criminalize marijuana, but I don’t think having marijuana where you can buy it like cigarettes or alcohol is something we ought to be doing as a society. I believe we are moving in the wrong direction on that,” said Steve Francis, a former San Diego mayoral candidate and founder of the site KeepComingBack.com—a site that focuses on news and research of alcohol and drug addiction.

Francis says that legalizing marijuana would ultimately cost the state money. He cited a report issued by the Marin Institute that found the economic cost of alcohol use is $38 billion annually, with the state covering $8.3 billion for health-care treatment of alcohol-caused illnesses, plus crime costs, traffic incidents and reduced worker productivity. The taxes and fees collected from alcohol sales only cover 22 percent of total government costs. He says there is every reason to believe the same would happen with marijuana.

“Whatever taxes the author of the legislation thinks we are going to collect on the taxation of marijuana will be very little compared to the social costs on California,” he said.

But the economic impact legalizing marijuana could have goes beyond taxation. Nearly a fifth of California’s 170,000 inmates are locked up because of drug-related crimes. Although most are convicted on crimes more severe than possession, legalizing marijuana would save the state $1 billion in law enforcement and corrections costs.

Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray says the best solution is to repeal the prohibition of marijuana, allowing the substance to become regulated and less available to children.

“We couldn’t make this drug any more available if we tried,” he said in TIME. “Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substance to use, misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They’re here to stay. So let’s try to reduce those harms, and right now we couldn’t do worse if we tried.”

Even if California were to legalize marijuana, there are those that believe that the gray area between federal and state law would only widen. Since California’s Compassionate Use Act was passed in 1996, medicinal marijuana has become more accessible to those need it. But it has opened the gates of confusion, as federal laws still consider marijuana illegal. In fact, cannabis is described as a Schedule 1 drug by the federal Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no medical use and cannot be prescribed by a physician. Many California municipalities have been reluctant to allow medical marijuana dispensaries, even though they were legalized 13 years ago.

There has been some indication that the federal government is starting to ease its control of marijuana. A few days after Ammiano introduced AB 390, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be allowed to determine their own rules for medical marijuana and that federal raids on dispensaries would stop in California. President Obama’s nomination of Gil Kerlikowske to be the so-called drug czar and head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy indicated that a softer federal stance on marijuana is being taken. Kerlikowske is the former police chief in Seattle, where he made it clear that going after marijuana possession was not a priority for his department.

A vote by the Public Safety Committee on AB 390 is expected in January. Ammiano said the bill could take between a year and two years before it is heard or voted on in the Legislature. Until then, the debate over decriminalizing marijuana will continue amidst one of California’s worst economic times. BY Landon Bright Source.

Meg Kwasnicki

Welcome to Meg’s Picks, the first in a series of charitable and nonprofit sector book reviews by Meg Kwasnicki, manager of Imagine Canada’s Nonprofit Library Commons.

The New Federal Policy Agenda and the Voluntary Sector: On the Cutting Edge
Edited by: Rachel Laforest Publisher: McGill-Queen’s University Press. McGill-Queen’s University Press

This is a must-read for those of us looking to understand current Canadian federal political agenda and its impact on the voluntary sector. The New Federal Policy Agenda and the Voluntary Sector: On the Cutting Edge is an edited text of eight papers, is very accessible and complete  in outlining the shift of federal funding policies and priorities from the former liberal government to the current conservative Harper government.  For readers, the stage is set with a great context of voluntary sector policy over the last 15 years with a perspective paper The Harper Government and the Voluntary Sector: Whither a Policy Agenda? (pp. 7-34, Susan D. Phillips). The additional papers build on the broader points by honing in on topics such as: Financial sustainability (Andrew Graham), social economy (Luc Thériault), the Urban Agenda (Neil Bradford), Childcare Advocacy (Grant Holly) and Citizenship and Immigration (Jehad Aliweiwi & Rachel Laforest).

Federal government interest in the Voluntary sector: From bad to worse
One of the eight papers featured in the book, this text demonstrates that the relationship between the voluntary sector and the former liberal government was far from perfect and still needed development. Now it’s much worse. What was little long-term policy follow through on policy positions building off of capacity-building programs such as the Canada Volunteerism Initiative (CVI), has turned to overarching neglect for the voluntary sector.  Some examples: transfer whatever dollars possible to provinces to manage funded projects (e.g. Literacy, promotion of volunteerism), eliminate support for sector-based or interested research, eliminate advocacy groups. In short, I can’t say it better than one of the authors:

“The federal government has created a dilemma for itself. It appears to have made it clear that it does not need any relationship of significance with the voluntary sector- not advocacy, nor research, nor the promotion of volunteerism, nor social enterprise, nor active citizenship.” (pp. 30, Phillips)

The subsequent papers outline specifics around the nature of the how current federal government policy is ultimately creating issues with how effectively the voluntary sector can do its work. Hopefully, informing ourselves with this text’s well illustrated examples will lead to a more knowledgeable and empowered sector. Kudos to all the authors and editor Rachel Laforest for her oversight in bringing it all together and creating a great flow of articles that build off of the points made by each author.

Contributors include: Jehad Aliweiwi (Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office), Neil Bradford (Western), Andrew Graham (Queen’s), Grant Holly (Université de Montréal), Rachel Laforest (Queen’s), Susan Phillips (Carleton), Senator Hugh Segal (Queen’s), and Luc Thériault (UNB).

Find this book and other sector literature at the library site’s New Acquisition’s list.

Georgia Tech is putting together a statement to press, to drum up interest in National CS Education Week, and of course, in what Georgia Tech is doing in this space.  I got permission for Stefany Wilson, our Director of Communications, to share it here. The comment from me at the bottom isn’t exactly what I said — Stefany put better grammar and less hyperbole in my mouth.

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic
December 2, 2009 by Gabor Steingart

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

Democrats, foreign affairs, military, news, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, terrorism, troops, war

IFTF’s new report, From Caregiving to Caring: A New Approach to Civic Engagement, analyzes the results of Ruby’s Bequest, a project by United Cerebral Palsy and the Institute for the Future to create the first platform for public collaborative innovation in health care and caregiving.  The report outlines seven strategies to create the future of caregiving as catalyzed by the stories and ideas of Ruby’s Bequest participants. Read more about the report’s findings and download a copy here.

Matthews Calls West Point, Site of Obama Speech ‘The Enemy Camp,’ ‘Strange Venue’
December 1, 2009 by Jeff Poor

Either MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews let one slip tonight, or it was an extremely poor choice of words.

Following President Barack Obama’s Dec. 1 speech, which he announced his intentions for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, MSNBC followed with wrap-up coverage of his speech with arguably three of their most prominent on-air personalities – “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, “The Rachel Maddow Show” host Rachel Maddow and Matthews.

Matthews referred to a scene from “Gone with the Wind” about the American Civil War as an example of “excitement” going into a war. He said that was lacking in the room during Obama’s speech.

Matthews Calls Cheney an Ankle Biter, Backtracks on West Point ‘Enemy Camp’ Claim
December 2, 2009 by Jeff Poor

There’s something about these big events that cause MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews to go off script and say something seemingly ridiculous.

Matthews has publicly admitted President Barack Obama has given him a thrill up his leg after a campaign speech in Feb. 2008, and uttered “oh God,” earlier this year after an Obama address to Congress, prior to the Republican response from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal earlier this year. And on Dec. 1, he referred to West Point as “the enemy camp” in coverage following a speech from Obama announcing his intentions to increase troops in Afghanistan.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Refers To West Point As The ‘Enemy Camp’ For Obama
December 2, 2009 by Mark Memmott, NPR

Later in his show last night, Matthews said he might have used the “wrong phrase.”

You think?

Crooks and Liars calls Matthews’ “enemy state” quip “possibly the stupidest comment of the night.“

If there was something stupider said by one of the TV pundits last night, we shudder to think what it could have been.

Democrats, bias, bigotry, elitism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, philosophy, politics, propaganda, public policy, scandal, terrorism, video, war

Rolling back Taliban needed to defeat Al-Qaeda: Gates
December 2, 2009 by AP

Defeating Al-Qaeda requires pushing back insurgents in Afghanistan and a NATO failure there would allow the Taliban to return to power, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

“Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of Al-Qaeda,” Gates told a Senate hearing a day after President Barack Obama unveiled plans to surge 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

“Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war,” Gates said.

“Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for Al-Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan.”

Gates, Mullen & Clinton argue for new Afghan plan
December 2, 2009 by ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) – Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of the country and “have severe consequences for the United States and the world,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday as the Obama administration set out to sell its new strategy on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers questioned the exit strategy, a day after Obama announced he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to the Afghan war and would commence troop withdrawals by the summer of 2011.

Cut-& Run Flashback: Obama & Biden Bash Bush Surge (Video)
December 1, 2009 by Gateway Pundit

In 2007 both Barack Obama and Joe Biden continually spoke out against the Bush Surge of troops in Iraq.

From the video: Speaking at Camp Lejeune on February 27, 2009, Barack Obama talked about the success of our efforts in Iraq which he and the Democratic Party tried to undermine on a daily basis.

Biden and Obama were wrong.
Today Iraq is a great success thanks to George Bush and our military… And no thanks to democrats.

Democrats, bias, foreign affairs, government, hypocrisy, iraq, left wing, liberalism, military, news, pandering, political correctness, politics, propaganda, public policy, terrorism, troops, video, war

71% Angry at Federal Government, Up Five Points Since September
November 30, 2009 by Rasmussen

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government’s policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.

approval ratings, culture, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, news, politics, public policy

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
November 29, 2009 by FOUAD AJAMI

‘He talks too much,” a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America’s 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not “unclenched their fist,” nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment.

Democrats, diplomacy, foreign affairs, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news, philosophy, political correctness, politics, public policy

December 2, 2009 – New Jersey is poised to become the next state to allow residents to use marijuana, when recommended by a doctor, for relief from serious diseases and medical conditions.

The state Senate has approved the bill and the state Assembly is expected to follow. The legislation would then head to the governor’s office for his signature.

Gov. Jon Corzine, the Democrat who lost his re-election bid last month, has indicated he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk before he leaves office in January. It would likely be one of Mr. Corzine’s last acts before relinquishing the job to Republican Chris Christie.

Mr. Christie has indicated he would be supportive of such legislation, but had concerns that one draft of a bill he read didn’t have enough restrictions, a spokeswoman said.

The bill has been endorsed by the New Jersey Academy of Family Physicians and the New Jersey State Nurses Association.

Some lawmakers oppose the legislation, saying they fear the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries, as in California, where medical marijuana is legal. “It sends a mixed message to our children if you can walk down the street and see pot shops,” said Republican Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini.

Federal law bars the use of marijuana. But legislatures in several states, including California, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont, permit use of the drug for medical purposes. Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier this year that federal prosecutors wouldn’t prosecute people complying with state medical marijuana laws.

The New Jersey bill would allow people with debilitating medical conditions to grow, possess and use marijuana for personal use, provided that a physician allows it after completing a full assessment of the patient’s history and condition. The conditions that are stipulated in the Senate bill include cancer, glaucoma and human immunodeficiency viruses.

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, a Democrat who has led the fight for the medical-marijuana bill, said that was not a final list. He said the Senate bill would have to be reconciled with whatever the Assembly might pass.

Support for the legislation stems partly from sympathy for the plight of John Ray Wilson, a New Jersey resident who suffers from multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system. Mr. Wilson is scheduled to go on trial in December on felony drug charges, including operating a drug-production facility and manufacturing drugs. State police said they found 17 mature marijuana plants growing alongside his home in 2008. He has pleaded not guilty.

The Superior Court judge who will oversee the case has barred Mr. Wilson from explaining to the jury that he uses marijuana for his multiple sclerosis instead of more conventional medicines, which he said he can’t afford, since he has no medical insurance.

If convicted, Mr. Wilson faces up to 20 years in prison. “It definitely helps for pain,” Mr. Wilson said. “Stress can bring MS on. And I’m definitely under some stress.”

David Wald, a spokesman for the state attorney general, which is arguing the state’s position, said: “We’re prosecuting the law.”

At least two lawmakers, including Mr. Scutari, have asked Mr. Corzine to pardon Mr. Wilson. “I think it’s unfair,” said Mr. Scutari. “To try to incarcerate him for years and years doesn’t serve a good government function.”

The governor’s office said it wouldn’t comment on pardons involving an ongoing case.

Mr. Wilson’s case hasn’t persuaded Ms. Angelini, who voted against it in the health committee. As the executive director of Prevention First, an antidrug and antiviolence nonprofit, she said she was concerned that the bill would open the door for more liberal drug policies.

“If the drug laws are lax,” she said, “that can open it up to eventual drug legalization.”

By SUZANNE SATALINE. Source.

December 2, 2009 – Stephany Bowen suffers from fibromyalgia, diabetic neuropathy and chronic pain from four back surgeries, a metal plate in the back of her neck and hypertension in her right leg.

Her daily ritual includes insulin, Vicodin and up to two bowls of marijuana, which she claims eases nausea caused by her medication and takes her mind off her pain.

She said she is unable to work and rarely leaves home. Her marijuana use is a crime under state law, but she is hopeful that one day that will change.

“I believe it does have medicinal qualities to it,” said Bowen, 46, of Penn Hills. “Since marijuana is grown naturally, it should be legal.”

Momentum supporting that position is growing. Since 1996, 13 states have legalized medical marijuana.

State Rep. Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, introduced House Bill 1393 in April that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes. A public hearing is scheduled tomorrow in Harrisburg before the House Health and Human Services committee.

The bill aims to ease the lives of suffering patients, take money away from the drug trade and create about $25 million a year in tax revenue from the sale of marijuana, Cohen said.

“The bill has a 1-in-4 chance of becoming law, but I think that health care groups will lean toward it,” he said.

Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Luzerne, chairman of the subcommittee on drugs and alcohol, said the decision to legalize marijuana should rest with the medical community.

“Doctors should determine whether there’s a place for the drug in the treatment of their patients,” he said.

The American Medical Association last month changed its position on medical marijuana, urging the federal government to reconsider pot’s classification as a Schedule 1 drug. The goal is to clear the way to conduct clinical research and develop marijuana-based medicines, according to the association.

The AMA’s statement was a topic of conversation recently at the first meeting of Pittsburgh NORML, the local chapter of the National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.

A group of about 20 members, who ranged widely in age and profession, discussed methods of spreading information about medical marijuana.

“We will be organized and professional,” said Patrick Nightingale, a Downtown defense attorney and founder of Pittsburgh NORML. “We’re not a bunch of freaks getting together to get stoned.”

Nightingale, a former Allegheny County assistant district attorney, said he supports complete legalization.

“It concerns me as an attorney that I’ve had to prosecute and defend folks for conduct no different than buying a six-pack or bottle of wine,” he said.

Tomorrow’s public hearing is a small step forward for supporters of the bill, but with just six co-sponsors there’s a chance it will never reach a vote, said Rep. Randy Vulakovich, R-Shaler.

“Marijuana is still considered a gateway drug, and a lot of the people who are fighting for this bill want to use the legislation as a step-off point for legalizing all marijuana,” said Vulakovich, a former police officer.

Gov. Ed Rendell maintains his position on medical marijuana, said spokesman Gary Tuma.

“If a reasonable, well-crafted bill reached his desk,” Tuma said, “he would sign it.” By Kyle Lawson Source.

About state House Bill 1393
Although federal law prohibits the use of marijuana, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In Arizona, doctors are permitted to prescribe marijuana. (The Obama administration recently directed federal prosecutors to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients.)

State House Bill 1393 would legalize marijuana for use by patients with cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS or any other health issues that a licensed doctor deems treatable by marijuana in a manner that is superior to treatment without marijuana.

Patients who qualify would be required to have a registry identification card and possess no more than six marijuana plants and one ounce of pot.

To read the bill, go online, select “Bill #” at the top under “Find Legislation By,” type in “H 1393″ and click “Go”

Source: State House Bill 1393

All those in favor

A Gallup poll in October found that 44 percent of Americans were in favor of making marijuana legal — not just for medicinal purposes — and 54 percent opposed it. U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana was fixed in the 25 percent range from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but acceptance jumped to 31 percent in 2000 and has continued to grow throughout this decade, according to Gallup.

Source: www.gallup.com

TQM and the entire development of the Quality Movement and Principles is headed toward several key areas. These are:

1. Government
2. Public/Private Partnerships

More and more critical services are being managed and delivered by either government or a public/private partnership. There are already many examples of quality initiatives in government, but it is still in its infancy. Using Quality tools to address public/private partnerships, I think will emerge over the next then years as a new area to be developed.

Consider the health care debate for a moment. If you strip away the rhetoric from the left and the right, you have a series of debates and often fundamentally different points of view.

The Quality Perspective views citizens as the final customer and a variety of interests and groups as stake holders. Sorting out how to deliver services and in what capacity is a common problem addressed by Quality practitioners. Eliminating waste and delivering effective and efficient solutions is what Quality is all about.

The tools used, six-sigma, lean, TQM, leadership development or whatever are just that, tools.

I think that another component needs to be added to effective and efficient and that is ethical.

So my mantra these days is effective, efficient and ethical solutions for the common good.