Jonathan's blog

Via Slate's Today's Papers column, an article of the same title by Charles Piller in the LA Times has some criticism for The Gates Foundation:

In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works. In Ebocha [Nigeria], where Justice lives, Dr. Elekwachi Okey, a local physician, says hundreds of flares at oil plants in the Niger Delta have caused an epidemic of bronchitis in adults, and asthma and blurred vision in children. No definitive studies have documented the health effects, but many of the 250 toxic chemicals in the fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer. "We're all smokers here," Okey said, "but not with cigarettes."

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France - the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe. Indeed, local leaders blame oil development for fostering some of the very afflictions that the foundation combats.

Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments - totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities - have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.

At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter.

Also via Today's Papers, the Gates Foundation responded to the criticism:

In a significant change, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced Wednesday that it would review its investments to determine whether its holdings were socially responsible.

Via Andrew Sullivan from a couple months back, an article titled "A Country Ruled by Faith" by Garry Wills in The New York Review of Books, among other things, described the process by which ideology was placed above competence as people were selected by the Bush administration to manage and rebuild Iraq as part as the Coalition Provisional Authority (we now know how well that went):

The equivalent director of personnel for the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (headed by Catholic convert Paul Bremer) was the White House liaison to the Pentagon, James O'Beirne, a conservative Catholic married to National Review editor Kate O'Beirne. Those recruited to serve in the CPA were asked if they had voted for Bush, and what their views were on Roe v. Wade and capital punishment. O'Beirne trolled the conservative foundations, Republican congressional staffs, and evangelical schools for his loyalist appointees. Relatives of prominent Republicans were appointed, and staffers from offices like that of Senator Rick Santorum. Right moral attitude was more important than competence. That was proved when the first director of Iraqi health services, Dr. Frederick Burkle, was dismissed. Burkle, a distinguished physician, was a specialist in disaster relief, with experience in Kosovo, Somalia, and Kurdish Iraq. His replacement, James Haverman, had run a Christian adoption agency meant to discourage women from having abortions. Haverman placed an early emphasis on preventing Iraqis from smoking, while ruined hospitals went untended. This may suggest the policy on appointments that put Michael Brown in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but the parallel is insufficiently harsh. Chris Matthews brought it up on his television show while interviewing the Washington Post reporter who had covered the CPA in Iraq, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who said, "There were a hundred Browns in Iraq." But there were Bible study groups in the Green Zone.

The "In the Womb" series on the National Geographic Channel continues this Sunday night at 8 PM eastern with "In the Womb: Multiples."

The process by which multiples develop in the womb is fraught with complications and dangers. But, it is also a fascinating world where humans first interact with their siblings before entering the world outside the uterus. "In the Womb: Multiples" follows the development of double-egg twins, sometimes called fraternals, and identical or single-egg twins. We also follow the development of triplets and a very rare set of identical quads in their quest for survival. Using revolutionary 4D scans, we witness unique footage of multiple fetuses interacting with each other before birth: reaching, touching, fighting and even engaging in game-playing that can continue after they are born. Ultimately, "In the Womb: Multiples" tells us not only about the extremes of human reproduction but the limits of human design.

Several stories in the news recently... Via Slate's Today's Papers column, from an article in the LA Times by Lisa Girion titled "Healthy? Insurers don't buy it":

...the ranks of uninsured Americans have swelled to more than 46 million.

...part of what experts say is a largely hidden aspect of the nation's health insurance crisis: the uninsurables, people whom insurance companies won't touch, even though they can afford to pay high premiums. Some...pay steep rates for lean coverage from the state's high-risk insurance pool. Others simply go without. Insurers have wide latitude to choose among applicants for individual coverage and set premiums based on medical conditions. Insurers say medical underwriting, as the selection process is known, is key to keeping premiums under control.

Consumer advocates see the practice as cherry-picking - a legal form of discrimination that is no longer tolerated in schools, public accommodations or workplaces - and a way to guarantee profits.

According to regulators' postings, rejection letters and interviews with brokers, conditions that can lead to outright rejection or a higher premium include: AIDS, allergies, arthritis, asthma, attention deficit disorder, autism, bed-wetting, breast implants, cancer, cerebral palsy, chronic bronchitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic sinusitis, cirrhosis, cystitis, diabetes, ear infections, epilepsy, gender reassignment, heart disease and hemochromatosis (a common genetic disorder that causes the body to absorb too much iron). Other conditions are hepatitis, herpes, high blood pressure, impotence, infertility, irritable bowel syndrome, joint sprain, kidney infections, lupus, mild depression, muscular dystrophy, migraines, miscarriage, pregnancy, "expectant fatherhood," planned adoption, psoriasis, recurrent tonsillitis, renal failure, ringworm, severe mental disorders, sleep apnea, stroke, ulcers and varicose veins.

Also via Today's Papers, Dennis Cauchon reports in USA Today in an article titled "States to expand health coverage":

States are planning large expansions in health care coverage this year in an aggressive and potentially expensive attempt to reduce the ranks of the 42.4 million Americans who are uninsured. The states are acting at a time when Congress, now under Democratic control for the first time since 1994, has put health care lower on its agenda. Governors and state legislators in both parties and most states have made expanded medical coverage a priority for legislatures - all 50 of which are in session this year, 43 starting this month. Popular proposals include guaranteeing medical coverage to all children; subsidizing medical insurance at small businesses; and providing tax incentives for businesses and individuals to make coverage more affordable. A few states are considering universal health coverage for all residents. Others are focusing on price competition and preventive care.

And also via Today's Papers, Arnold is leading the charge to make sure everyone has healthcare in California as reported in an article titled "Gov. offers bold prescription" by Jordan Rau in the LA Times:

Calling for massive changes throughout a healthcare system he called "broken," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed a $12-billion plan that would require all Californians to obtain medical insurance while helping the poorest to afford it. The plan, which both critics and supporters called the most audacious in the country, would dramatically reshuffle the financial underpinnings of an already fragile industry. The governor said his plan would control spiraling health costs while ensuring coverage for the quarter of a million children and 5.6 million adults who lack insurance.

Only Massachusetts has required all residents to carry insurance, but California's larger population of uninsured and poor makes Schwarzenegger's goals much more challenging. To pay for the plan, Schwarzenegger proposed placing new fees and obligations on doctors, hospitals, employers and insurers - all powerful lobbies in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger was widely praised for tackling such a huge issue so comprehensively. But many leading consumer advocates, academics and business leaders said they feared that the governor's proposal was inadequately financed and would shift more responsibility for healthcare to families while unintentionally encouraging businesses to drop or downgrade the coverage they now offer.

Finn: "Deeeeelectable!" Lisa: "Dee What?" Finn: "Delectable!" Lisa: "What's that mean?" Finn: "Scrumptious." Lisa: "Where did you learn that word?" Finn: "Backyardigans."