Cameron Todd Willingham: Innocent Man Executed in Texas

There’s some really disturbing news coming out of the Innocence Project today. A new report done by the organization shows that Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 was actually innocent. Willingham was convicted of arson murder which killed his three young children back in 1992. At Willingham’s trial, forensic experts testified that evidence showed the fire was intentionally set. To his death, Willingham insisted upon his innocence in the deaths of his children and refused to plead guilty in return or a life sentence.

Two and a half years ago, in May 2006, the Innocence Project formally submitted the Willingham case to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, along with information about another arson case and a request that the panel order a review of arson convictions across the state. In the other arson case, Ernest Willis was convicted of an unrelated arson murder and sentenced to death in 1987, and he served 17 years in prison before he was exonerated. In 2007, the Texas Forensic Science Commission announced that it had accepted the Innocence Project’s complaint and would launch an investigation.

To read the full article in the September 7th issue of The New Yorker (which deconstructs every facet of the case, finding that none of the evidence against Willingham was valid) click here:

What I find so disturbing about this case is two-fold. First simply that this could happen. And secondly, that it’s probably not the only time in which it has happened. Ongoing support for criminal justice reform is crucial. And it’s crucial now. The Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck asked the crucial question, “How can we stop it from happening again?”

Social Media Survival Seminar: Help for the Rest of Us

Do you feel uneasy when you hear words like Web 2.0, blog, Twitter and viral video? While young colleagues effortlessly ride the fast-moving social media train, are you worried about being left behind? Well you’ll be pleased to know that Overbrook is will be co-hosting a seminar at Philanthropy New York on September 17th, 2009 called “Social Media Survival Seminar: Help for the Rest of Us”

This session is offered as part of Philanthropy New York's series TELLING OUR STORY, and will be presented by The Overbrook Foundation, Surdna Foundation, and The Nathan Cummings Foundation. All funders, particularly those interested in social justice, movement building, and media and communications are invited to attend. The program will begin with breakfast from 8:30-9:00 and then the program will run from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon.

The program will be led by Allison Fine, author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age and Tom Watson, Managing Partner, Cause Wired Communications, and author of CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World. If you participate you’ll learn how social media tools and philosophy can improve your efforts to plan and implement grantmaking strategies. Use your increased understanding to help grantees overcome their own barriers to using social media for social change. The session will include demonstrations of social media tools, videos used to advance mission, and related case studies.

Please note that there is no fee for this program, but registration is required by September 15th. Philanthropy New York Members can log in here to register yourself or a colleague online by clicking on the link above (visible through September 15th). If you have any questions, please contact register@philanthropynewyork.org.

Interrogation into Detainee Abuses Begins

Many Americans have called on the Obama Administration to investigate the alleged torture and other detainee abuses that have occurred over the past several years here in America. Our voices have been heard.

Well, on Monday, the Obama Administration took actions that demonstrate a commitment to ending detainee abuse and beginning a process to hold those responsible accountable for the torture. To read the State of the Attorney General Eric Holder regarding a preliminary review into the interrogation of certain detainee abuses, click here.

Attorney General Holder's decision to appoint a prosecutor to re-examine a number of cases of alleged torture and abuse is the latest sign that the Administration's 'don't look back' policy is being reassessed. We first saw this welcome reconsideration in July when the President ordered his national security team to gather the facts about the alleged Dasht-e-Leili massacre in Afghanistan in 2001.

Beginning in 2005, the organization Physicians for Human Rights has documented the systematic use of psychological and physical torture by US personnel against detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase and elsewhere in its groundbreaking reports, Break Them Down, Leave No Marks and Broken Laws, Broken Lives. The CIA Inspector General's report (PDF) released yesterday confirmed the use of abusive and illegal interrogation techniques documented in these reports.

We couldn’t agree more with Physician for Human Rights who wrote, “This is yet another milestone. While much work remains to be done - to restore the US commitment against torture, ensure humane treatment of detainees, and mobilize the health professional community to adopt strong ethical prohibitions against participation in interrogations – this is a historical turning point”

In-Depth Research on "Human Rights"

Last week an Overbrook Foundation grantee The Opportunity Agenda’s shared its most recent opinion research opinions on human rights. They’ve recently completed an in-depth public opinion research this past spring to help advocates in building understanding and support for human rights at home. Through a series of focus group discussions, they examined attitudes toward human rights, and how to discuss a range of social justice issues within the context of human rights. The goal of the project was to examine the potential for using a human rights framework in communicating on these issues.

Their research (which you can read more in-depth here) found that these audiences generally see human rights as the rights you have by virtue of being born. However, as the discussions move from initial reactions to the phrase “human rights” to more in-depth discussions of applying human rights to a range of social justice issues in the United States, participants’ views of human rights become more complex. In particular, when members of the key audiences begin to distinguish between rights which are protected— freedom from torture, freedom of speech, etc.— from rights which are provided—health care, education, etc.— they begin to see some hesitation about calling the latter human rights.

Interestingly, many of the participants also held a conditional view of who should have certain human rights. For example, undocumented immigrants, in the minds of most of the key audience members, have forfeited some of their human rights because they have broken the law to be in the United States. Therefore, many question, and even object to, undocumented immigrants receiving health care. There are some human rights, however, that most of the members of the key audiences believe should be guaranteed to all, including due process rights, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from mistreatment.

For other questions regarding the report, please contact Eleni Delimpaltadaki at eleni@opportunityagenda.org.

The Wrong Guys

Last week the Foundation read about some exciting news. Subjects of an Overbrook-funded book “The Wrong Guys” (a book about false confessions which was published by The New Press, a not-for-profit publishing house with titles on education, cultural, ethnic and community subjects) were pardoned by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and released from jail!

Joseph Dick Jr., Derek Tice and Danial Williams were convicted in 1997 in the rape and murder of a woman in Norfolk, Virginia, but another man later confessed to committing the crimes. The three, along with another sailor were known as “The Norfolk Four”.What was particularly exciting, along with the vindication for the subjects of the book, is that it was possible to trace from the pardon back to the book which is a kind of influence that's usually very tricky to determine.

A couple of weeks ago, well-known author John Grisham, who had read and wrote a blurb about the book, announced that he is planning to write a screenplay based on the case. The book has been featured numerous times on television and in magazines. Grisham said last week in a phone interview that a magazine article first piqued his interest, and the authors of "The Wrong Guys" sent him an advance copy, seeking a quote for the book jacket. What intrigued him in the book was the exploration of the phenomenon of false confessions, and the convicted sailors explained how they were persuaded to confess to rape and murder.

Last week when the pardon was announced, the victim's family (who is not happy about the pardons) "blamed" Grisham's announcement for bringing attention to the case and influencing the governor's decision. As the Virginian-Pilot reported:The case has become a cause celebre in circles. It inspired a book, "The Wrong Guys: Murder, False Confessions and the Norfolk Four." Best-selling author John Grisham recently said he was writing a screenplay on the case. The Moores say they believe politics played a role in the governor's decision. "We do not believe it is a coincidence that Governor Kaine granted these pardons just a few weeks after the announcement that John Grisham intends to write a screenplay.”

The New Press is now working with local bookstores and newspapers to try to sell some copies, but luckily the book has managed to have an impact quite apart from any sales that may be realized.

Waterworld Revisited

Yesterday I visited the NYC Waterpod, docked in the Hudson River just off of Brooklyn Bridge Park. Waterpod has been enjoying a fair amount of press since its launch in June, but its essence is difficult to pin down in words. Waterpod founders themselves come closest, describing the project as a "sustainable, sculptural art and technology habitat," a "public-access barge," and a "floating sculptural living structure designed as a new habitat for the global warming epoch." Although accurate, even those descriptions don't do the Waterpod justice. It's best to jump aboard yourself and experience the project. Click here for a schedule for docking and public hours.

The Waterpod is an exercise in sustainable and efficient living, with all the residents' food, water and electricity needs generated on board. Walking on to the Pod from shore, visitors enter a metal jungle-gym-like shelter covered with reused billboard segments, sewn together in an artful yet utilitarian collage. The Pod's chickens, which provide eggs for the residents, cluck happily in a spacious coop at the back of the dome. The 100 percent compost-fueled Pod garden lives just outside the dome, across from the tiny but private cubbies where residents sleep.

Signs posted around the Pod teach visitors about its sustainable systems, such as the gray-water collected and used for gardening. The Waterpod's collection drums can store up to 1550 gallons of rainwater a day, which is then fed through 46 feet of gutters and drainpipes. Waterpod residents (let's call them "Pod people") use an average of 5-10 gallons of water per person per day, compared with 65 gallons for the average residential New Yorker. Showers on the Pod are limited to five minutes. Gray-water collected from hand-washing, showers and dish-washing goes through an on-board purification system made up of seven repurposed maple syrup containers, now filled with gravel, sand and wetland plants to replicate the ecosystem and filtration abilities of a natural marshland.

As if the water conservation systems weren't cool enough, all electricity used on the Waterpod is generated completely by solar panels and human power. When I visited the Pod, a sign tacked to the frame of a stationary bike at the back of the dome bore the message "Power My Drill." A power drill connected to the bike lay on the ground, waiting for eager peddlers. Unfortunately there weren't many takers, most likely a result of the 90 degree heat!

Artist Mary Mattingly is the Pod's founder and mastermind, but a rotating crew of artists, engineers, environmentalists and others interested in getting off the grid have helped keep it sustainable and afloat since June. The Pod crew plans to live on board through October, but needs outside funding for weatherization if the project continues through the winter.

The Pod was originally envisioned as a self-sustaining artists' colony, but the crew soon found the daily tasks of keeping it functioning took all of their time and energy. A New York Times article quotes one artist, who has since left the Pod community, as lamenting the fact that "it takes a lot of work to do sustainability."

But when I visited yesterday, the Pod seemed idyllic -- a healthy respite from the muggy city looming across the river. As I stepped back ashore and made my way to the subway, a few Pod people prepared to take a refreshing dip in the river. Kevin Costner eat your heart out!

Climate Change will Cost Us, Today or Tomorrow

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog reports today that the oil industry, including The American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Farm Bureau, is funding anti-climate bill rallies in towns across the country during Congress's August recess. The Senate is set to vote on the climate bill (ACES) next month. Among other things, the industry released fliers bearing messages like, "Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause high economic pain and produce little environmental gain."

Reuters reported yesterday that Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official, released a statement conceding climate change mitigation and adaptation will come with a hefty price tag. In this respect the oil industry's claim is not completely false. What it does not consider, however, is the tremendous and overbearing future cost of ignoring the problem now.

De Boer estimates climate change mitigation such as capping greenhouse gas emissions and switching to clean energy, in addition to aiding developing nations as they adapt and react to floods, droughts and other natural disasters, could cost the world $300 billion per year from 2020 on. $300 billion is a lot of money in anyone's book, but in crafting legislation that estimate must be weighed against the cost of doing nothing at all.

Last Sunday's New York Times ran a front page article linking climate change to national defense, describing what will likely be the counter argument by ACES supporters come September. Ignoring the cost of climate change today, the argument goes, will cost much more tomorrow in military effort and mitigation. Floods, droughts, mass migrations, pandemics and food shortages will increase in frequency and severity as the planet warms, and in responding to those disasters the developed world will be forced to spend money on climate change anyway. A huge geopolitical impact is inevitable, so we may as well face up to reality and get a head start by passing strong climate change legislation today.

The Times article ends with a bleak, but perhaps practical quote from General Anthony C. Zinni. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today," Zinni warns, "and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives."

Who's Responsible for Communicating About Our Work? All of Us

I'm doing a cross-posting today. Last week I officially became a regular contributor for the Communications Network.

To that end, the Communications Network's Executive Director, Bruce Trachtenberg, asked me to expand upong of the key themes of the work of the Communications Network and that is that communications is a foundation responsibility, and shared by the entire organization.

So go check out my post, Who's Responsible for Communicating About Our Work? All of Us. And if you're interested in the discussion, there was a great follow-up post Eureka! They Can’t Live Without Communications--Now What? by Holly Minch, a communications consultant to the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund.

"Tapped"

As Samantha said, my name is Jonny and I'm the new intern at Overbrook!

This Thursday I went to see the new documentary "Tapped." The movie covers the many environmental issues of bottled water, from the toxic chemicals in the plastic, to the large heap of plastic in the Pacific ocean that is twice the size of Texas. The movie shows that large companies, like Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle, have been taking huge amounts of water from municipal sources, (causing drought in some areas) purifying it, bottling it, and selling it for over 1900 times the price of tap water. These companies claim that their water is much cleaner that tap water, and so charge much more for it. In reality, the movie shows that on average, tap water is cleaner than bottled, because it's regulated weekly by the FDA, while most bottled water is regulated by the companies themselves.

Another major issue covered in the movie is the plastic bottles themselves; the pollution put into the atmosphere as a result of manufacturing the bottles, the toxic chemicals in the plastic, and where the plastic ends up after it's been used. 20 percent of bottles are recycled, but the rest either ends up in landfills or the ocean. Many bottles end up in the huge North Pacific Garbage Patch, where there is 46 times more plastic than plankton.

The movie was well made, and I learned a lot about bottled water that I didn't know. Overall I liked the movie quite a bit, and I recommend seeing it! My only problem with it is that the theater was a little hard to find, but that isn't really the movie makers' fault.

Welcome Overbrook's New Intern

Here at Overbrook we are all thrilled to welcome Jonny Adler, the Environment Program's youngest intern to date! Jonny turns 13 on August 12th, and comes to us after a summertime stint at Hidden Valley Camp. Full of country air and toasted marshmallows, he is ready to learn about what we do here and lend his unique perspective on environmental issues. Jonny is the founder of Project Green, an environmental club at the Collegiate School, where he will be a 7th grader in a few short weeks. While at Overbrook, Jonny is researching environmental web sites and social movements directed at kids and teenagers. Look for his posts on the Overbrook blog. Welcome Jonny!

Good News for National Parks

The Bush administration acted illegally in 2005, according to a federal appeals court ruling, when it struck down the 2001 rule prohibiting road development and logging in national parks. Wednesday's ruling reinstated the protections of 2001, ensuring our national parks are safe once again from development. Idaho and Alaska's Tongass National Forest remain exceptions, but environmental groups are working on the Obama administration to extend the roadless rule.

Kristen Boyles, the Earthjustice attorney who litigated the case on behalf of 20 environmental organizations, acknowledged the victory but warned against complacency.

"We're not out of the woods yet," she said. "This decision halts the Bush administration assault on roadless areas, but the Obama administration should now take the next steps necessary to make protection permanent."

The 2001 Roadless Rule not only saves national parks for hikers and campers, it also protects wildlife habitat and reduces costs for municipalities that get their drinking water from sources in national parks. Pollutants from logging and other industry increase the costs of treating drinking water.

Follow this link to read the decision.

Follow this link for a history of the National Park Service.

Net Neutrality in the House

Thanks no doubt in part to those who’ve been hard at work in the media reform movement over the past few years, we have some good news. Last week, Representatives Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) and Anna Eshoo (D-California) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458).

If approved, this legislation could be a landmark victory for those who have been working on Network Neutrality. This act would protect Network Neutrality under the Communications Act, which would not only safeguard the future of the open Internet, but would protect Internet users from experiencing discrimination online.

Network Neutrality is an issue that hits home to many Americans. Since the struggle for Network Neutrality first began, over 1.6 million Americans, across all political spectrums, have called, written petitions, and spoken out publicly urging their members of Congress to get behind this issue.

But we’re not there yet. We still have to tell our members of Congress to side with the public and take a final stand for an open Internet by supporting the Act. The time is ripe for this! President Obama is an avid support of Network Neutrality, there is congressional leadership that is willing to fight for it, and the newly appointed and elected Julius Genachowski as the head of the Federal Communications Commission.

If you’re interested in reading the full text of the bill, click here. Also be sure to check out Tim Karr’s recent piece in the Huffington Post on the Seven Reasons Why We Need Network Neutrality Now.

More Struggles Ahead for ACES

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as ACES, Waxman-Markey, or most simply, the climate bill, was welcomed into the political scene months ago with much excitement and publicity. But the momentum ACES gained last spring is fizzling fast.

Politico.com reports today that the climate bill, which the House passed in a watered-down version in June, is competing for Senators' time and attention. The debate raging in the Senate now centers around health care, and ACES supporters fear Democrats crucial to its passage simply don't have time to fully review and advocate for it. Supporters are anxious to pass at least some sort of climate legislation before December, in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Even in diluted form, the bill's passage could send a symbolic message to the world that the United States is turning over a new leaf in regard to climate change. The hope is that coal-heavy countries like China and India will follow our example and cut back their emissions.

Of course, the United States is still quite coal-heavy itself. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s International Energy Outlook for 2009 projects the United States will be responsible for 14 percent of the world's coal-related emissions by 2030, compared to India's eight percent. (The EIA projects China's 2030 coal-related impact to be the worst of the three major coal polluters: 52 percent of the world's coal emissions by 2030!)

And as if climate bill supporters didn't have enough obstacles, 12 letters sent to congressional offices before the ACES vote were recently outed as forgeries, masquerading as entreaties from minority grassroots organizations that opposed the bill. The Washington lobbying firm Bonner&Associates, where the letters originated, claim a temporary employee acted alone and was terminated upon discovery.

All three of the representatives who received forged letters are Democrats, and two of them ultimately voted against ACES. It is difficult to know if the letters influenced their votes, but in the midst of heated debate around climate and energy legislation, it's safe to assume every little bit counts.

US Signs Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

Last week an important step was made when the United States signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is the first Human Rights treaty that we have signed in almost a decade. It also came shortly after the 19th year anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

More than 650 million people (54 million of whom are Americans) currently live with a disability – that represents nearly 10% of the population. Although the convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted by the UN General Assembly as far back as December of 2006, the US didn’t sign it because the Bush administration maintained that disabilities were a domestic issue and that the international treaty would weaken protections afforded to Americans by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Unlike the Bush administration, President Obama believes that “disability rights aren’t just civil rights to be enforced here at home. They are universal rights to be recognized and promoted around the world,” President Obama said when he announced the US would sign the convention at a celebration for the anniversary of the ADA. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice also said “this treaty urges equal protection and equal benefits under the law for all citizens, it rejects discrimination in all its forms, and calls for the full participation and inclusion in society of all persons with disabilities.”

So what happens next? President Obama will send the convention on to the US Senate, which will have to ratify the convention in order to make it binding US law. Overbrook Foundation grantee, Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) is working in coalition with the US International Council on Disabilities, and Eric Rosenthal, the Executive Director of MDRI, serves as co-chair of the Committee on CRPD ratification

If you’re interested in learning more about the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities click here.