In the last couple of days it has come to light that the term “abortion” had been taken out of Popline, a publicly funded health database managed by John Hopkins University. Popline receives money from USAID (United Stated Agency for International Development). Representatives of the university acknowledge that the term had been programmed out of the database, but later reinstated when the dean of the Public Health School objected.

Initially the term was disabled after complains from the development agency claiming that the database contained two articles which they believed did not meet the database’s standards (they were about abortion advocacy). A Popline manager explained at information could still be retrieved through “related” terms such as “fertility control, postconception” or “pregnancy, unwanted”, what they failed to point out is that these terms do not mean the same as “abortion”, and in any case, they are restricting information to the general public.

It’s amazing to me that such draconian measures were taken to appease an over zealous political position. There is no need to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Just because certain powerful people do not like a few articles in a database, is no reason to restrict everyone else’s access to them.

Loriene Roy, president of the American Library Association (ALA) best summed up the situation.

“Any federal policy or rule that requires or encourages information providers to block access to scientific information because of partisan or religious bias is censorship,” she said. “Such policies promote ideology over science and only serve to deny researchers, students and individuals on all sides of the issue access to accurate scientific information.”

You can read more about this case from an article form the NYT here, and Wired Magazine here.

Stanford law professor Larry Lessing has come up with a new tool (still in beta) to try and keep the USA government clean and honest. The Change Congress aims to enlist the help of volunteers across the country to keep track on their representatives’ responses on a variety of issues, and then make this seemingly abstract information, concrete through Google mash-ups. Lessing wants congress representatives to commit to four different issues; 1) to promise to not take money from lobbyist and Political Action Committees (PAC), 2) support publicly financed elections, 3) help pass legislation to stop spending money on questionable projects in their districts, and 4) to help make Congress a more transparent place over all. Candidates who wish to be measured by these guidelines can do so by filling out a form on the website.

It is hoped that the project will have bi-partisan appeal, and that volunteers across the country will participate. The project anticipates that there is wide ranging dissatisfaction with congress in general, and that this energy can be channeled into making congress a more accountable place for all of us.

You can read more about this project from an article in Wired Magazine here. You can read Lessig’s blog here, and his Youtube page here.

Back in late February Álvaro Colom (official website), Guatemala’s president announced that he would be opening the country’s military archives to the public. The announcement was made in honor of Guatemala’s Día Nacional de la Dignidad de las Víctimas del Conflicto Armado Interno (National Day for the Dignity of Victims of Internal Armed Conflict). During his speech Colom acknowledge that the country will not be able to heal unless the state assumes responsibility for the violence that was perpetuated against the country’s indigenous population.

The archives should contain information on military activities during the country’s civil which lasted over 30 years, between 1960 and 1996. It is estimated that at the time as many as 2000,000 civilians were killed and about 50,000 were disappeared. The archives should also shed light as to the location of unnamed graves. In 1999 the UN truth commission estimated that about 90% of these deaths could be attributed to the army and state.

The military establishment and former national leaders have not welcomed this announcement, although it is expected that the opening of these archives will go forth since is it mandated by a presidential decree.

You can read more about this from a BBC article here, and from a Voltairenet article here (in Spanish).

The Boston Public Library (BPL) has joined forces with PublicResource.org and the Internet Archive in order to begin digitizing the library’s large collection of government documents. This project has first envisioned by Mr. Carl Malamud and Mr. Brewster Kahle, the founders of these two collaborating organizations. Mr. Malamud hopes to eventually digitize the entire USA government document collection, which holds around 100 millions pages. The project is expected to take two years, at a cost of $6 million.

This project also hopes to gather a number of other digital collections which are already accessible online, but at a cost. The intent is to buy access to these collections and make their content freely available to everyone. The BPL wants to begin this project by digitizing their holdings relating to the Committee on Un-American Activities hearings from the 1950s, as well as a substantial collection of Congressional Hearings recently donated by Harvard.

In the future the BPL wishes to begins their own digital archive for holdings relating to local Boston and Massachusetts documents.

Here’s to hoping that initiatives such as these continue to prosper, and to make government more accessible and transparent.

You can read more about this from an article in the NYT here.

Between May 15 and May 21 members of the USA congress were challenged to eat only what they could afford on about $3 a day which is the average food stamp benefit. Some of the representatives that participated are Jim McGovern (D-Mass. ), Eric Gioia (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Jan Schakowsky, and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri). McGovern and Emerson head the House Hunger Caucus and were the ones that put out this challenge, which few took up. All were faced with the crude reality of living on such a low food income.

Gioia commented that every day he woke up hungry and irritable. On one of the challenge days a single mother of two who lives on food stamps accompanies him to the store and introduced him to stuff like ramen noodles and the store’s discount coupons. Nearing the end of his week he had to go to a food pantry to get some extra food to hold him for the last couple of days.

When Ryan was traveling, security guard took away his jar of peanut butter and jelly, leaving him with hardly any food for the next few days. This made him aware that for people really living on such a limited income a simple mistake, such as dropping and breaking a container of food can result in going hungry.

This challenge was directly linked to the upcoming Federal Farm Bill, which has often been blamed for tipping the agricultural landscape in favor of cash crops instead of promoting balanced agriculture, which will lead to balanced diets. As these representatives discovered, living on such a limited food income is not only a problem because of the very small amounts of food they could access, but so was quality. Many end up eating foods high in starch, which provide a sensation of fullness, but little nutritional value. This group also commented on either gaining or loosing weight, and feeling lethargic on this diet, and they only had to do it for a week. Imagine a lifetime of bad nutrition, and the consequences; high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. As of December 2006, 26.3 million people in the USA rely on food stamps.

McGovern kept a blog about his experience which can be found here. You can read about Gioia’s experience here.

Today, Michael Pollan (author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “The Botany of Desire”) had a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine about how the agribusiness is who determines what we eat, and how the farm bill, which passes Congress every 5 years, affect almost every aspect of our lives and in turn affects people all over the globe.

For a nation that is increasingly more and more concerned about obesity, it is incredible to realize that dollar for dollar you can get more calories/more food from highly processed foods than you can from more natural foods. A study by Adam Drewnowski from the University of Washington found that a dollar can get you 1,200 calories from cookies or potato chips, but only 250 worth of calories from carrots. This set up hardly makes sense, “junk food” is highly processed and should therefore cost much more, but this is where the farm bill comes into play.

The USA farm bill, among other things, determined which crops will be subsidized, and the five favored crops are corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton, the first three being the main ingredients of “junk food.” These subsidies have created a saturation in the market place for these products at the expense of denying us a more balanced diet at an affordable price. It also means that these products can compete in the international market place at an unfair advantage, and thereby have the ability of being sold in foreign markets at lower prices than locally grown food. The hypocrisy of it hits when you realize that the USA lobbies as much as they can in the world market to prevent other countries from subsidizing their products, but yet that is exactly what happens here. This unfair marketing approach has created a situation in which USA grown corn can sell cheaper in Mexico, than locally grown corn. This also means that Mexicans are eating corn that has a lot more chemical than the local crop. Given the situation it is only obvious that Mexican farmers, and others around the world who have been put out of business by this set up try to make a living elsewhere, in many cases that means immigrating to the USA in search of a better life.

The light at the end of the tunnel here is that more and more groups are starting to realize just how this farm bill affects us. Public health groups are realizing that issues like obesity and diabetes cannot be fully addressed without talking about this bill. Environmentalists see that this bill means massive agribusiness initiatives, which in turn mean more polluted land, air, and water due to the high use of chemicals. Even the huge world organizations seem to be speaking out about this unfair bill. In 2004 the World Trade Organization ruled that USA cotton subsidies were illegal; hopefully they will continue speaking up.

On a related note, a great documentary on this and similar issues is Life and Debt, by Stephanie Black.

06.07.07 - A recent article on thruthout.com continues this discussion around the USA Farm bill. The article explains the dynamics of how big agribusiness benefit from this bill. Large poultry producers benefit from receiving highly subsidized chicken feed (corn). These discrepancies continue when the USA exports the chicken parts that aren’t liked as much here to developing countries, at rock bottom prices, and in doing so they help destroy local production. Ironically a number of peasants in other countries affected by these global economic dynamics end up immigrating to the USA to work at the very plants that helped destroy their initial livelihood.

Image information here.

Mexico seems to be paving the way for social reforms in Latin America. In January the country legalized same sex civil unions, and today they have legalized abortion in the first trimester (although this is only applicable to Mexico City); previously women could have a legal abortion only in case of rape or if her life was at risk. The vote was 46 to 19 with only one abstention and all of the “no” votes came from president Felipe Calderon’s political party.

Currently there are about 200,000 illegal abortions in Mexico, and yearly at least 1,500 women die because of poorly handled and unsanitary illegal procedures. This new law states that if a woman has an abortion after the first 12 weeks she risks going to jail for 6 months, the doctor risks between 1 - 3 years in jail, and women under the age of 18 still need parental consent.

In Latin America, only Cuba, Puerto Rico (technically USA territory) and Guyana also offer women the ability to have a legal abortion. Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile ban the practice entirely.

Today, the NY Times, and the BBC and the Guardian, in the UK, all have articles on the subject.

You can learn more about women’s health issues in Latin America through Latin American and Caribbean Women’s Health Network (LACWHN).

To celebrate National Library Week, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) plans to introduce legislation that will amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide Perkins student loan forgiveness in order to encourage people to accept and remain in library positions in low-income school and public libraries. If successful, the Librarians Act of 2007 would allow for loan cancellation for full-time librarians (who hold an MLS) who work in a public library in a neighborhood that has one or more schools eligible for assistance under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, or who work in an elementary or secondary school that is eligible for assistance under this same Title I.

The 1965 Elementary and Secondary School Act, is part of the “War on Poverty” campaign launched by President Lyndon B. Jonson. This act was established to redress the needs of poor children, realizing that children from low-income homes require extra educational services.