Dear Readers,

As those of you who follow my postings know, I love New Orleans. So, I found the post-Hurricane Katrina man-made destruction (the breakdown of the levees), and everything that followed heartbreaking.

I expressed my views about what philanthropists could do about this disaster in a piece for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, published a couple months after Hurricane Katrina, in October 2005.

I'ver re-read the piece, and think its recommendations as timely today as they were then. Here it is:

When President Bush spoke to the nation from New Orleans to present
his ideas for rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, he said:
'We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.'

Here's a bold action for philanthropy: The wealthiest American foundations should pour all their resources into the recovery over the next few decades, and then go out of business.

In so doing, grant makers could go a long way to helping the country get past the centuries-old American tragedy laid bare by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath: We live in a country that permits poverty and profound racial discrimination to occur, even while we claim that all are entitled to: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Perhaps no other incident in U.S. history--since the founders of this nation wrote those immortal words in the Declaration of Independence--has exposed so vividly, to so many, America's willful and systematic neglect of the poor, or its inability to offer the needy a way to escape poverty.

Close to a century after some of the nation's largest foundations were created to right what was wrong with America, the world watched a city of African-American poor people drown and starve to death, watched while not one voice of institutional philanthropy was heard to say: This is wrong, what caused it is wrong, and we as philanthropists must do everything in our power to end it.

The outpouring of charitable donations by corporations and individuals after Hurricane Katrina speaks volumes about the willingness of Americans to help feed the hungry and house the homeless.

Yet, most of these donations have gone for short-term relief. These contributions will not cure the systemic ills that created the horrors made so visible by the man-made disaster in New Orleans. But the contributions of our big, endowed foundations could.

If the premise of American philanthropy is to do good and to solve big problems, then America's big foundations should spend all their money to solve our biggest, longest-standing problem: Poverty.

The modest sums foundations spend each year on social justice causes aren’t enough to eliminate poverty and racism: Big money and the clout of wealthy foundations are needed to rebuild our flawed American home.

America's 66,000 foundations now have more than $435-billion in assets. That is the kind of money that can make a big difference, if grant makers spend it quickly and strategically.

The inability of the poor to escape neglect and abuse does not exist only in New Orleans, and the unwillingness of America to eliminate poverty causes suffering of nationwide proportions and huge costs.

Indeed, as I write, The Brookings Institution issued a report,entitled: Katrina’s Window: Confronting Concentrated Poverty Across
America. The report’s authors write: "'The choice for policymakers,
then, is this: fail to act and consign another generation to these distressed neighborhoods, or take bold steps to prevent the next ‘social Katrina.’"

America's big foundations do not have to spend all their money today. They could set a goal of spending all their assets by 2076, 300 years after 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' was written. Then, the grandchildren who escaped Katrina, the Superdome, and the Convention Center could tell their grandchildren: Yes, America has met its promise.

What could the major foundations, working alongside a generous American public, its governments and corporations, create over the next seven decades? Here's a short list:

• Affordable and decent homes for the poorest Americans.

• Environmental protections that do everything possible to protect people from illness and death, whether it is on the Gulf Coast,
or in California's earthquake zone, or anywhere else in the United States.

• Employment policies that require all jobs to pay enough for people to live above the poverty line.

• Schools that educate all children to take advantage of the opportunities available.

• Universal health care.

Creating this America is the job foundations should take on, instead of saving most of their resources for future catastrophes that may never occur.

Here's the argument I would make, if I were sitting in one of those foundation boardrooms today:

•Curing the disease is cheaper than treating the symptoms. Forty-three years after Michael Harrington wrote his landmark book about “the other America,” and 41 years after President Johnson said we needed a 'war on poverty,' poverty is as great as it has ever been in America; the people who have historically suffered the most still do; and the regions of the country where poverty was the greatest then are still the worst-off now.

• Wealthy American entrepreneurs are creating new foundations practically every day. For example, as I write, Google announced a $265 million giving program. There will be new money for new problems.

• Furthermore, by 2076, the Fords, Rockefellers, and Waltons of that day will have started their own big foundations. These new philanthropists will want to commit their resources to the problems of their day. Certainly, they should be able to do that, not have to heal centuries-old
sores still festering.

• Government cannot cure the problem. The greatest federal debt in our nation's history means that the federal government, even if it wanted to, would be unable to sustain either its current level of spending (which is already inadequate), or increase its spending to cure either the immediate, post-Katrina problems, or the longer-term problems that will occur. Those problems include, for example, chronic homelessness, illiteracy, the low wages that keep so many working Americans in poverty, mental-health crises, and inadequate job training.

• Ending poverty cannot be done incrementally. Making the decision not to operate in perpetuity will require foundations to undertake the strategic thinking and bold actions that incremental investing doesn't require--just the kind of thinking that is needed in the face of the monumental problems caused by Katrina.

• Eliminating racism is vital to the nation's successful future. The failure to take bold action will exacerbate the deepest division among Americans--race. The divisions among Americans of different races has impelled disorder, violence, and even wars. No one wants that again.

• Foundations receive a tax subsidy because they are intended to provide value to society. If major institutions don't solve major problems, or, looked at another way, don't create valuable goods, what is their value? In the corporate world, when they don't, they wither and die. Why should American taxpayers continuously subsidize a failure to create good for the most vulnerable among us—generation after generation?

The great American foundations should take a lesson from the Aaron Diamond Foundation,which pledged at the outset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to distribute all of its assets in a decade, so it could do all it could to fight the deadly disease. The result: Research financed by the foundation led to the discovery of the drugs that today mean AIDS does not have to be fatal.

Dealing with the intertwined problems of race and poverty in theUnited States, once and for all--and in its myriad manifestations--is too difficult a challenge for any single grant maker to take on, but working
together, and putting all their resources into the effort, the nation's wealthiest foundations now have the greatest opportunity they have ever had to right what is wrong in America.

___________________________________________________________________
Rebecca

Labels: Ford Foundation, Google, Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, poverty, President Bush, Rockefeller, Walton

Dear Readers,

Why oh why is this happening? Here's the latest scoop, from my perspective.

At the links above, you'll see my commentary on the President's recent policymaking on the matter of access to abortion. These posts of mine elicited hundreds of comments on The Huffington Post, a symptom, I imagine, of interest in the topic.

As most of you know, I've not been a happy camper on this front.

Well, now, not even the President's strongest allies at the national pro-choice women's organizations are happy, either. They seem almost as distressed as I. They have submitted letters, called for reconsideration, and, I imagine, have had private meetings. [To no avail, so far.]

So, why, oh why, is this happening? Why is the President taking this course?

I can only conclude that the President is, in this instance, as he says he always does, making policy according to his own lights. In this instance, however, he damns the fact that pro-choice women elected him.

Well, the problem is that this latest approach of his just won't work. Further, it seems a bad decision, if his goal is advancing women's overall good health and preventive healthcare.

Whatever the reason for the President's decision, it's really, really important for each of us to let the President know our view. You can do that here: "White House dot gov." This makes a lot of sense to me in this week when we celebrate women's suffrage.

Sincerely,

Rebecca

Labels: 19th Amendment, abortion, Huffington Post, President Obama, Rep Bart Stupak, The White House, women's suffrage

Dear Readers,

On the occasion of Elena Kagan's presumptive confirmation to the Supreme Court, http://http//www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=25389&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1, I'm posting my piece, "The Supremes, and We're Not Talking Motown Here," which appeared in the Huffington Post and in RH Reality Check earlier this summer.

Since I first posted this piece, I've received a whole lot of interesting comments--a lot of people care a whole lot about our Supreme Court, and that's a wonderful thing: Whoever said civic engagement has diminshed, that we're "bowling alone" (these days) isn't part of (our) crowd. And I, for one, am very grateful for knowing that.

A great first-2010-August-weekend to all.

Rebecca
_______________________________________________________________

THE SUPREMES, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING MOTOWN HERE

So, maybe, there’s yet another big difference between the sexes: While nice boys finish last, nice girls finish first.

Just look at today’s news: I ask you, what’s a bigger achievement than being selected as a Supreme Court Justice? Yup, just pause, and think for a moment about those words, “supreme” and “justice,” next to your name. How cool would that be?

In his first year in office, President Obama has had the amazing good fortune to get two Supreme Court picks. In both cases, he picked a girl from New York. [How cool is that, for a(nother) girl from New York: me. Let me count the ways. But keep reading; it's not all that good.]

OK, so let’s be serious here. Do you see a pattern here? And, this time, I’m not talking about the one in which all the brilliant New York girls are being picked for starring roles.

The pattern is: Make sure you're a really nice girl, first and foremost.

What’s that, you ask?

Well, taking a page from the Sonia Sotomayor/Elena Kagan, New York, nice girl (no, "New York" and "nice" is not an oxymoron) playbook, it’s study really hard; get really good grades; go to Princeton (both); go to Harvard Law (Elena), or go to Yale Law (Sonia); have important male mentors; stay single as you’re making your way up the career ladder, so no husband’s choices get in your way, or put you in a bad light; well, you get the drift.

In fact, these two women who finished first: Elena, the one about to have “supreme” and “justice” next to her name, and Sonia, the one who already has it, are nice girls, in all the ways that actually matter, if you want to have words like “supreme” or “justice” next to your name.

In fact, these days, as Sonia and Elena have now proved, you can even safely forget the baby-making and the finding a nice guy, or even a(nother) nice girl (keep reading on the latter point). Just don't forget to study hard, and never, never talk out-of-turn.

And, do forget, for sure, that old saw, which used to make some of us feel better: “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” http://thinkexist.com/quotation/well-behaved_women_rarely_make/180481.html.
In fact, those badly behaved women, and, believe me, I know where-of I speak, only make history of the upset-the-apple-cart kind, not the kind that leads to “supreme” and “justice” next to one's name.

In sum, these two New York nice girls, just like those two nice Illinois girls, Michelle Obama (Harvard Law) and Hillary Clinton, she of the when it came right down to it I did stand by my man school, (Yale Law), have never met a test they couldn’t ace, and, well, cooking or housekeeping, the used-to-be sine qua non of nice girls; well, there’s help for that: Just ask Michelle or Hillary.

On the personal front, Sonia Sotomayor seems kind of like Valerie Jarrett (Michigan Law, daughter at Harvard Law). While married early-on, there was no husband around during the formative years of her career, when the difficult decisions needed to be made, when one’s decisions might have required consideration of the desires of another ambitious adult.

On the other hand, Elena Kagan has never married, and, at least as far as we know so far, she hasn’t had any long-term intimate relationship, (male or female), requiring accommodation to that person’s career or personal goals.

And, doubly lucky for Elena Kagan (we have made some real progress here), the White House seems to be comfortable handling, albeit somewhat defensively, the assertions that the President may have just nominated a LESBIAN to the SUPREME COURT! [It really is delicious when you think about it.]

So, what’s my point in all this, you ask? Well, my point is it’s that gosh-darned “nina modela” thing, that “nice girl”/model child syndrome one more sickening time.

So, that’s ridiculous, you say? It's ridiculous to feel bad when a woman finished first--when lord knows not many women, of any kind, finish first anywhere, much less in the run-up to the Supreme Court?

Well, it's not ridiculous, I say, because it’s the bad girls, like me, who make these good (nice) girls’ dreams come true. And, to add insult to injury, these nice girls can maybe even be lesbians!

We screamed, and scream; we hollered, and holler. And what do we get? Somebody’s back, as they shut the door in our face(s). “She’s a pistol," they say, and not with admiration.

What do they get? The Supreme Court (Elena and Sonia), or the West Wing (Valerie), or, for that matter, and not so bad either, the East Wing (Michelle and Hillary).

Fact is, Elena stood silent, while I screamed. Fact is, Elena was "canny," while I was fervent. Fact is, Elena was a coalition-builder, while I was an advocate. Fact is, Elena didn’t express her political views, while I did nothing but. Fact is, Elena wrote little, while I wrote untold speeches and press releases, all with the same basic headline: We (women) want more. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10kagan.html

[NOTE: I’m using myself as a stand-in for those women lawyers who will
never be considered for “supreme” and “justice” next to their names. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t run this race.]

Is this ironic, or what? This is Elena, the putative lesbian, we’re talking about. This is Elena, who, odds-are, will be doing nothing but express her opinions for the next forty or so years, if her’s and the President’s good luck continue, and just because she kept her mouth shut in the early rounds. It's not only ironic, it's bewildering.

Ironic? Let me count the ways.

--Let others do the political talking, so you don’t have any politically-incorrect YouTube videos.

--Let others do the writing, so you don’t have any controversial law review articles.

--Let others interrupt their careers to follow a spouse, or pay for a spouse’s education, while you forge ahead in line.

--Let others fight for women’s reproductive rights, while you benefit from that fight.

--Let others advocate for women as a group, while you advocate for yourself.

Yes, all this said, I’m still very happy that a(nother) non-Protestant (more progress, here) woman from New York is going to be a Supreme Court Justice. That makes the Supremes, in case you’re counting, the (really cool, not Motown, but Big Apple) Supremes: Ruth, Sonia, and Elena.

But I’m not that happy: In fact, as I think about it, I think I was happier when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court, a woman who found a way to be a women’s advocate, and a wife, and a mother, as well as a way to be a brilliant lawyer and judge, and, finally, yes (!), a Supreme.

And, as I think about it, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be a better role model for today’s young women than soon-to-be Justice Kagan or now Justice Sotomayor. For, unlike Kagan and Sotomayor, Justice Ginsburg has
lived the life that most women live, and yet she found a way to be a Supreme, notwithstanding.

Labels: Elena Kagan, Hillary Clinton, Huffington Post, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Michelle Obama, rh reality check, U.S. Supreme Court, Valerie Jarrett

Dear Readers,


Here is my July Today's Chicago Woman/ChicagoNow blogpost.
_________________________________________________________________

Maybe you’ve noticed that a lot of my Today's Chicago Woman blogposts have a history flavor to them.

This is no accident. I love reading, and writing-about, American (women’s, especially) history: So much so that I studied American history in graduate school, and wrote my master’s thesis on Jane Addams and the relationships among the women who created Hull House.

But, shortly thereafter, I realized that the role of college professor wasn’t right for me. I loved the stuff I might get to profess about, but I needed to find a more vital and public venue in which to study history and find it instructive—for today’s Chicago woman, for that topic was my real passion.

Well, one of those venues is this one, the pages of Today’s Chicago Woman.

Indeed, I think that today’s Chicago woman can benefit, in myriad ways, from understanding (keep reading), the work and life of her foremothers and fore-sisters, most especially the work and life of those with deep Chicago connections (again, keep reading).

So, here goes my women’s history lesson for this month’s—Independence Day’s month—(today’s) Chicago woman. Notably, I’m thinking July Fourth, Independence Day, as I write.

Though I admit I’m actively thinking about those last few days off baking in the sun, going to the beach, and hanging-out with friends and family, never far from my mind these last (June, May, April) —and soon-to-be, July!—days is the Gulf oil spill, the disaster BP has wrought.

To give credit where credit is due, as we discussed the “BP massacre” one recent night, my husband reminded me, Rebecca, the amateur historian and fierce political blogger, who should have this fact on the tip-of-her-tongue at all times, that it was an amazing woman, who first said what time it is about “Big Oil.”

That would be Ida (Minerva) Tarbell, who, over a century ago, wrote: “They [“Big Oil,”] had never played fair, and that ruined their greatness for me.”

And that’s one of Ida Minerva’s milder comments.

And who was Ida Minerva writing about? Well, none other than Standard Oil (at its last, headquartered in Chicago and employing hundreds of today’s Chicago women), a cousin of BP, bought by BP a few years back.

In 1904, Tarbell published The History of the Standard Oil Company. “…[o]ne of the most thorough investigations ever written of how a business monopoly exploits the public by using unfair tactics, [it] has been called…’arguably… the single most influential book on business ever published in the United States.’”

Now, this bit about Ida Minerva isn’t some obscure bit of women’s history trivia, of interest only to those of us whose favorite form of trivial pursuit is the one about women in American history.

No. This bit about Ida Minerva is really, really important for all today’s Chicago women, today and everyday.

Why? Well, because Ida Minerva had the guts, the guts to get to the gut (wrenching) heart-of-the-matter, as I noted above, over a century ago, about Big Oil’s avaricious and unending willingness to exploit women, men, the environment, the vanity of public officials, you-name-it; the guts to write about the willingness of Big Oil to exploit whatever in pursuit of its holy grail, Big Profits.

You could say that this is all a justifiable, totally reasonable, smart (businessman’s) reaction to the American public's "stuck-on-stupid" approach to (not) saving our environment, because of our well-of-desire for cheap oil, but I think this analysis too facile.

No, there is something bigger at-hand here, and that something is our repeatedly-apparent, for over two centuries and counting, unwillingness to understand and take-hold-to what Independence Day is really about: American days un-dogged by the willful and injurious actions of British, or, for that matter, any other, kings.

Hear this: Ida Minerva, just like another amazing American woman journalist named Ida, Ida B. Wells, who I’ve also written about in these pages did what we all need to do everyday, not just on the Fourth of July: She celebrated the Fourth of July, Independence Day, not by going to the beach, but by writing tirelessly and unceasingly about the meaning of the Fourth of July, Independence Day: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”un-dogged, even in the dog days of summer, by the willful and injurious actions of kings.

Forget the beach, the barbecue, and the brew: July Fourth is about our independence from kings’ oppression. On July 4th 1776, it was the oppression of King George; on July 4th 2010, it’s the oppression of another, and no better, British king, British Petroleum.

Go here, today’s Chicago women: and tell the BP British king to go back where he came from, just like our ancestors told King George he should do; we today’s Chicago women, are just not having you here on our shores.
__________________________________________________________________

Sincerely,

Rebecca

Subscribe to my blog here.

Labels: BP, Fourth of July, Gulf Oil Spill, Today's Chicago Woman

http://www.tcwmag.com/blogs/working-mothers-in-the-great-recession

Dear Readers,

So, here we are, the day after the Senate failed to pass a jobs bill, to help the millions and millions of unemployed Americans.

So, I share with you (see above link) my June 2010 column for Today's Chicago Woman because, at the end of the column, you'll find a list of my faves for guidance for taking action. They are the: YWCA, Women Employed, and Women's Business Development Center.

Let's tell those Senators what we think!

Best wishes.

Rebecca

SiveSiftingsRebeccaSiveTalksBack

Labels: Great Recession, Todays Chicago Woman, U.S. Senate, unemployment, working women

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebeccasive/from-bp-massacre-to-bp-ma_b_610069.html


Dear Readers,


Here is the link to my featured piece in today's Chicago edition of the Huffington Post.


Among other places, the piece also appears on OnEarth, the wonderful NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) web site, the WTTW Chicago Tonight website, Buzzflash, the USA Today subject page re the Great Depression (keep reading at the link, and you'll see why), and, of all places, on the Madison Square Garden website, which, lately, has been picking-up my work. (Maybe I can get a ticket the next time Beyonce plays there:).


Seriously, this isn't funny, but laughing to keep from crying is part of the "mo" right now.


As I've advocated before, do feel free, if you haven't yet, or, if you have, to express your views, get involved, and other wise help out. It's that important, as the President reminded us yesterday and today.


Best wishes.


Rebecca

www.rebeccasive.com/blogSubscribe.htm

Labels: BP, Gulf Oil Spill, Huey Long, Huffington Post, James Carville, Louisiana, Madison Square Garden, President Obama, WTTW

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/press_room/news/documents/PressRelease_06-09-10.pdf


Dear Readers,


So, go to the above link, posted by one of my favorite places, the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, for some great current and historical info re upcoming woman-to-woman races, e.g., Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer in California.


Have a wonderful weekend.


Rebecca
www.rebeccasive.com/blogSubscribe.htm

Labels: Carly Fiorina, Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University, Sen. Barbara Boxer