The Bloom Collective has sent out the following image to several media outlets in Grand Rapids, and the poster has been appearing around the city itself.
It is probably no coincidence that Kissinger will be speaking at the econ club in Grand Rapids the same day as the event listed on the flier above. While the speech at the Devos owned JW Mariott downtown is strictly “members only”, those interested in learning more about Kissinger’s war crimes (and can’t afford $190 “Standard Membership” to the econ club, though they probably won’t be touching on Cambodia there anyhow) can attend the Bloom’s showing of The Trials of Henry Kissinger this upcoming Tuesday at 6pm.
All Bloom events operate on a “suggested donation” model, so no one turned away for lack of US currency. Any and all questions should be forwarded to email@example.com.
For a variety of reasons GRIID will be taking a break from our work. We hope that in the meantime others will step in and take on more Indy media work in West Michigan. Thanks to everyone for their ongoing support.
This foundation profile is part of a series of West Michigan foundation profiles, which is included in our Grand Rapids Non-Profit Industrial Complex Project.
Jerry and his wife Marcia have their own foundation, that also serves as a mechanism for funding the kinds of projects that reflect his conservative, pro-capitalist, Christian worldview.
In looking at the foundation’s 990s for 2009 – 2011, we found that a great deal of their contributions went to conservative or reactionary Christian groups. Most of their money went to West Michigan organizations, but there were some from out of state that have received large sums. For instance, the Magdi Yacoub Foundation, which does medical work with children, received roughly $2,000,000 from their foundation, based on the most recent financial reports. The Jerry & Marcia Tubergen Foundation have also contributed substantially to the Cure International, Inc, which also provides medical treatment for children, but with an exclusively conservative Christian focus.
Closer to home, their foundation has contributed roughly $100,000 to Mel Trotter Ministries in Grand Rapids and other church ministries projects. The foundation has also funded anti-abortion groups like Michigan Right to Life ($5,000) and The Pregnancy Resource Center ($30,750).
We also notice a $50,000 contribution to Donors Trust, which has recently been receiving some attention because of their clandestine methods of funding everything from Right to Work campaigns to climate denial. When the Center for Public Integrity uncovered much of the information on the role of Donors Trust, we discovered that one of the main contributors to that group was Richard DeVos. This is not surprising, considering that Tubergen is a loyal employee of the DeVos family, but it further demonstrates the inter-locking systems of power and influence in West Michigan.
This video is produced by and re-posted from The Rules. Editor’s Note: While we find the video informative and useful for framing the global wealth gap, the group that put this video together does not offer ways to challenge global capitalism beyond reformism.
The richest 300 people on earth have the same wealth as the poorest 3 billion. This is no accident – those in power write the rules. Together, we have the power to change those rules.
This video is re-posted from ZNet.
One of the world’s leading intellectuals and political activists, Professor Noam Chomsky has been awarded the UCD Ulysses Medal, the highest honor that University College Dublin can bestow.
Professor Chomsky was presented with the UCD Ulysses Medal by the President of UCD, Dr Hugh Brady, following a public lecture hosted by the UCD Philosophy Society and the UCD School of Philosophy at University College Dublin on Tuesday 02 April 2013.
Healing Children of Conflict to host 2 fundraising events this month for Iraqi boy who lost leg in US missile strike
Nearly two years ago we reported on the efforts of the local group Healing Children of Conflict, which brought an Iraqi boy and his father to Grand Rapids.
Then, 8-year old Hamzah, was being fitted for a prosthetic leg, a leg which he lost from a US missile strike outside of his home in Baghdad.
Hamzah and his father are returning to Grand Rapids this week so that the now 10-year old Iraqi boy can be re-fitted for a new prosthetic leg.
To welcome back Hamzah and his father Imad, Healing Children of Conflict will be hosting two fundraising events in April. Hamzah and his father will be at both events to share their stories and talk about life in Iraq in 2013.
Healing Children of Conflict is hoping that both events will help cover the costs of the medical services needed and to provide an opportunity to educate the West Michigan community on the ongoing legacy of US foreign policy in Iraq.
Wednesday, April 17 at 7:00PM (doors open at 6:30)
Notos Old World Italian Dining
6600 28th St, Grand Rapids
Friday, April 26 at 6:30PM
Plymouth United Church of Christ
4100 Kalamazoo SE, Grand Rapids
Both events are fundraisers and people can purchase tickets ahead of time by contact Nidal Kanaan at firstname.lastname@example.org 616-262-4525 or Christine Yard email@example.com or 363-9041.
This article by Brentin Mock is re-posted from Colorlines.
Last year was the hottest on record for the continental United States, and it wasn’t an outlier. The last 12 years have been the warmest years since 1880, the year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began tracking this information. And climate scientists predict that the devastating blizzards, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires we’ve been experiencing lately will worsen due to climate change.
In many ways these punishing weather events feel like Mother Nature seeking revenge for our failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the primary cause of global warming. Despite abundant evidence, the U.S. government has yet to pass a law that would force a reduction in these emissions.
During his first term, President Obama did make climate change a priority, both in his campaign and in office. The American Clean Energy and Security Act that Congress produced passed through the House in June 2009 by a narrow margin. Yet the bill never reached a vote in the Senate, and it died quietly.
Environmentalists have been flummoxed ever since. One prominent cause-of-death theory says that large mainstream (and predominantly white) environmental groups failed to mobilize grassroots support and ignored those who bear a disproportionate burden of climate change, namely poor people of color.
With Obama in for a second term and reaffirmed in his environmental commitments, climate legislation has another chance at life. Now, observers are wondering if mainstream environmentalists learned the right lessons from the first climate bill failure and how they’ll work with people of color this time around.
Anatomy of a Conflict
To hear some environmental leaders tell it, their defeat wasn’t due to a lack of investment in black and brown people living in poor and working class communities, but to an over-investment in Obama. For example, Dan Lashof, climate and clean air director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), has blamed the president for having the audacity to push health-care reform and he’s pointed the finger at green groups for being too patient with Obama.
Asked what environmental advocates who led the first climate bill effort could have done differently in 2009, Bill McKibben, founder of the online grassroots organizing campaign 350.org, says their game plan was too insular. “There was no chance last time because all the action was in the closed rooms, not in the streets,” he tells Colorlines.com.
Yet that “action” took place behind closed doors for a reason: Major mainstream green groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy teamed up with oil companies and some of the biggest polluters and emitters in the nation to form the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). This ad hoc alliance was the driving force behind the failed 2009 bill and there were no environmental justice, civil rights or people-of-color groups at the USCAP table.
Obama can’t be blamed for the blindspots of major groups. As recent Washington Post and Politico articles have pointed out, their leadership and membership simply don’t reflect the race or socieconomic class of people most vulnerable to climate change’s wrath.
Sarah Hansen, former executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, argued recently that the mainstream has been stingy with funding and resources and inept at engaging environmental justice communities. In a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) study, “Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environmental and Climate Funders,” Hansen reported that philanthropies awarded most of their environmental dollars to large, predominantly white groups but received little return in terms of law and policy. Meanwhile, wrote Hansen, too few dollars have been invested in community- and environmental justice-based organizations.
According to the NCRP report, environmental organizations with $5 million-plus budgets made up only 2 percent of green groups in general but in 2009 received half of all grants in the field. The NCRP also found that 15 percent of all green dollars benefitted marginalized populations between 2007 and 2009. Only 11 percent went to social justice causes.
In January, Harvard professor Theda Skocpol released a study of the first climate bill campaign’s failure and faulted green groups involved for choosing direct congressional lobbying over grassroots organizing. Some of the major organizations did spend money on field organizers, wrote Skocpol, but only to push public messaging like billboards and advertisements.
“The messaging campaigns would not make it their business to actually shape legislation — or even talk about details with ordinary citizens or grassroots groups,” Skocpol wrote in the report. The public “is seen as a kind of background chorus that, hopefully, will sing on key.”
That the environmental movement thought billboards and ads could replace educating and organizing actual people was their biggest flaw, a position shared by Hansen and Skocpol. In comparison, health reform advocates took a lobbying and grassroots approach while the climate-change bill made the rounds and got a law passed.
“If you want to gain the trust of the emerging non-white majority, it’s not just a messaging thing,” explains Ryan Young, legal counsel for the California-based Greenlining Institute, a policy research non-profit focused on economic, environmental and racial justice. “It’s a values thing. You must understand the values of these communities and craft policy around that.”
Why does this matter?
Consider how the website of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) recently featured an article on city bird sanctuaries from the group’s print magazine titled “Urban Renewal.”
Having people of color on staff might have helped NWF understand that for some, “urban renewal” signifies a historical legacy of black and Latino neighborhoods being effectively erased by development projects such as sports stadiums. Cultural snafus like this have led to white environmental groups being clowned in influential outlets including The Daily Show.
In an interview about the unintended message of “Urban Renewal,” Jim Lyon, NWF’s vice president for conservation policy, told Colorlines.com that the group doesn’t “always get everything right” and that “he’d take it back to his staff.” (Ironically, one of the harshest critiques of urban renewal came from Jane Jacobs, a white conservationist.) On the topic of staff diversity, Lyon said the organization isn’t where they want it to be, but that they’ve made “good progress.” He would not release staff demographics, but said NWF achieves diversity through partnerships with other groups and programs like Eco-Schools USA, which he says “engages more than one million children of color” daily.
Beverly Wright, who heads the New Orleans-based Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, says racial oversights of traditionally white groups are the main reason black and Latino environmentalists have formed their own organizations. The culturally divided camps sometimes use the same words, but they’re often speaking different languages.
Take “cap and trade,” a scheme that would commodify greenhouse gas emissions for market-trading as a way to reduce those emissions. The first climate bill centered on cap and trade because most major environmental groups supported it. But cap and trade was anathema to environmental justice because it did nothing to curb local co-pollutants such as smog and soot, direct threats to communities of color. That’s not to mention that cap and trade was the brainchild of C. Boyden Gray, a conservative member of the Federalist Society and leader of FreedomWorks, today a major Tea Party funder.
Wright says major green groups tried to coax EJ organizations into supporting cap and trade by claiming it was for the “greater good.”
“But that meant white people get all the greater goods and we get the rest,” says Wright. “Until they want to have real discussions around racism, they won’t have our support. That’s what happened last time with the climate bill. It did not move, because they did not have diversity in their voices.”
“Diversity” doesn’t just mean hiring more people of color. As the 30-year-old Center for Health, Environment and Justice stated earlier this month, the diversity conversation “really needs to be about resources and assistance to the front line communities rather than head counting.”
So in the new round of climate bill talks, will large environmental groups meaningfully engage community-based EJ groups?
The prognosis is mixed. Look at MomentUs, a mammoth collaborative started in January to ramp up support for new climate legislation. While MomentUs claims to be a game-changer, the strategy behind it seems very similar to that of USCAP’s—the one that failed to deliver a climate-change law the first time around. On its website, MomentUs describes its board of directors as “cultural, environmental, business, and marketing leaders who offer the diversity of viewpoints and keen insight vital to advancing MomentUs’s mission.” At press time, all of the directors are white. So is the staff, except for one office administrator.
Looking at MomentUs partners, it appears that the same traditionally white environmental organizations who teamed up for USCAP are now working with corporations including ALEC funder Duke Energy, predatory subprime mortgage king Wells Fargo, perennial labor union target Sodexho, and Disney. At press time there are no environmental justice or civil rights groups involved.
On the other side of the spectrum, The Sierra Club—one of the nation’s largest and whitest green groups—has had an expansive role in environmental justice and advocacy, particularly in the Gulf Coast. In January it joined the NAACP and labor unions in launching the Democracy Initiative, which will tackle voting rights, environmental justice and other civil rights concerns.
To be sure, it’s way too early to make a conclusion about MomentUs or the Democracy Initiative, but the latter appears to be a step in the right direction in terms of highlighting the intersection between poor environmental outcomes and racism.
McKibben, the 350.org founder, has helped cultivate a multicultural fight against the Keystone XL pipeline project, but he admits that the overall environmental movement has “tons of work to do” on racial equity and inclusion.
“The sooner [mainstream environmentalists] absorb the message and are led by members of the environmental justice movement, the better,” he says.
In that case, the question is a matter of timing and power, of who decides when and which EJ activists get to lead.