The talk of the week is climate change. The question of the week is what are the real implications of the Waxman-Markey bill? As a warm up to the debate, here is a lighthearted video about climate change disaster posted by Citizens for Global Solutions:

While some might say it is a step forward, Paul Krugman of the New York Times cautions us to take a look at who voted no on the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. To be specific, it was 212 representatives. And he claims that most of these no votes are because representatives "rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases." This is no longer a civilized debate according to Krugman; it is simply treason that there are climate change deniers who ignore substantial research that shows potential for global disaster if we don't substantially rethink our policies. Krugman cites some powerful moments from Friday:

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it -- and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists -- a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?

Yes, it is -- and that's why it's unforgivable.

Other groups have emphasized that even those who voted yes on the bill had enough alternative interests that the good efforts of Waxman and Markey will go to waste. Friends of the Earth President, Brent Blackwelder, stated that the bill now fails to deliver the change that is necessary and will not come close to the emissions reductions that could solve global warming. His hope is that the Senate will produce a stronger bill.

It has been fascinating to watch the White House attempt to harness every possible function from the latest technological innovations. The White House website, in particular, seems to constantly discover a new form of reaching out to the public. YouTube videos, Facebook status updates, and Twitter posts are all part of the nine to five in the West Wing. These shifts are not for domestic audiences only.

Late last month, the White House website published a transcript of the President's remarks on Iran in Farsi. At her inaugural remarks on June 11, the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Judith McHale, pointed out that following the President's landmark address in Cairo, "The President's words were almost instantly translated into 14 languages, posted on websites and blogs around the world, transmitted by text message to mobile phones in more than 170 countries, and discussed on social networks that span the globe." The effectiveness of all this outreach can be debated, but regardless, it is most welcome. For some time now, many have complained that if the message itself remains unchanged, public diplomacy is always going to be a hard sell. However, the Obama administration seems to take a slightly different approach. Yes, perhaps the message itself is changing in subtle ways, but the manner and breadth of the outreach is changing too, and that may be just as important. For those following public diplomacy, these changes are notable in several respects.

First, the new mediums now being used by the White House have the benefit of not being perceived as official tools of the American government. The countries where we have seen the greatest difficulties in public outreach are generally already sophisticated consumers of propaganda who have experienced such messages from their own governments for decades. As such, they will not greet any American message sent directly for their consumption without skepticism and disbelief. Sites such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are helping the U.S. move from a sender only transaction (reading the press statements on the official White House website) to an exchange mode where one can comment on the YouTube videos and other forms of messaging posted by the White House. A new level of trust, and a broader audience are two easy benefits.

In past entries, we've discussed different ways technology is harnessed to fuel social movements--Neda's YouTube video and Iran's Twitter revolution are some of the more recent examples that come to mind.

However, Amnesty International has pushed the technological envelope further with their new ad against domestic violence. Using eye-tracking technology, the ad (seen above) shows a picture of a seemingly happy couple whenever the camera senses someone looking at the poster. As soon as the person turns away, however, the picture changes, depicting the couple in an act of domestic violence. Cool factor aside, the poster presents a clear message about the sobering truth of domestic violence to its viewers.

Although only one prototype is out at the moment (in Hamburg, Germany), Amnesty International's innovative method of social advertisement will likely give other organizations more ideas on effectively driving their point across to a wider audience.

For decades, China's influence on the world stage has steadily increased, marking China as a nation to watch. With China on track to become a global superpower, their media censorship is all the more troubling, but each successive U.S. administration has found it difficult to truly tackle the matter head-on (China does hold a large percentage of American debt, after all).

However, China seems to have gone too far with their push to have all computers sold in the country fitted with Web-filtering software by July 1st. The Washington Post says:

The filtering software requirement, which is scheduled to go into effect July 1, was designed to block pornographic content, according to Chinese officials. But Internet researchers have found that the software can also filter political content, expanding China's already robust efforts to restrict access to the Internet.

Because computer companies were given only six weeks' notice to comply with China's new software declaration, USTR Ron Kirk and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke are rejecting this requirement on the basis that it violates the World Trade Organization's trade barrier agreements. By using trade barrier technicalities as the foundation of their argument, they are also using this fight as ammunition against the obstruction against free speech in the country.

In part, the American officials' complaint framed this as a trade issue, objecting to the burden put on computer makers to install the software with little notice. But it also raised broader questions about whether the software would lead to more censorship of the Internet in China and restrict freedom of expression.

Furthermore, in their letters to China's Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology,

...the U.S. officials invited China to discuss with industry and government officials ways to promote parental control without restricting user choice, freedom of expression and the free flow of information.

In the end, China's increasing insistence on censorship has given U.S. officials the means to concretely address the issue in a way that China cannot easily ignore.

While Iranians take to the streets, and the western world supports them (via Twitter and the media), how are Arab countries reacting? They aren't. The Washington Post has now published two articles focusing on the unnatural silence in the Arab world partly due to the hypocrisy that lies in many Arab leaders and partly due to the lack of hope in their people that change is possible. As Iranians protest, other Arabs fear that in their own countries, even the chance to protest could never become a possibility. Mona Eltahawy of the Washington Post writes:

Do you hear the silence from the Arab world over events in Iran?

Let's start with Arab leaders, who are experts at vote rigging -- if they hold elections at all. What could they possibly say about the Iranian election, or the allegations of vote fraud, without sounding hypocritical? Nor would they rush to congratulate longtime nemesis Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a regional rival with nuclear ambitions.

The Arabs are quiet, but their silence is surely tempered with discomfort. The demographics of most Arab nations mirror those of Iran: The majority of Arabs are young. It's likely that many young Arabs watching thousands of Iranians demanding to be heard, Arabs who are suffocating under dictators of their own, thought, "That's me."

For some, the silence is the sound of despair, for in Iran we are seeing the implosion of the politics of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

What's happening in Iran is not about the United States or Israel. It's not about Ahmadinejad or Mir Hossein Mousavi. It's not even about the poor or the rich in Iran. The demonstrations are about people who feel their will and voice have been disregarded. In Egypt, it's our secular dictator, in power for almost 28 years, who disregards our will. In Iran, it's a clerical regime in power for 30 years, hiding behind God.

Here's a nice plug for the value of funding advocacy - perfect for all our advocate friends trying to overcome a timid (or ill-informed) foundation's reluctance. With big thanks to our friends from the Aspen Institute's Philanthropy and Social Innovation program. Readers who want more, more! can find further evidence for the value of advocacy in Forces for Good, a superbly documented study of effective nonprofits by Heather McCleod Grant and Leslie Crutchfield.

9. FOUNDATIONS SHOULD BE AS FAMILIAR WITH ADVOCACY AS WITH FORM 990S; REPORTS SHOW RESULTS FROM ADVOCACY FUNDING
According to Emmett Carson of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a foundation with the word "change" or "do good" in its mission is an advocate and should therefore be engaging in advocacy. Carson spoke at a special discussion on the topic at the Council on Foundations' Annual Conference. During the discussion Rusty Stahl of the affinity group Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy called it a discredit to the field that foundations do not know the ins and outs of advocacy. Advocacy engagement should be as basic and universal as understanding and using the IRS Form 990 among foundations, Stahl said. Carson argues that if a foundation's lawyer says the foundation cannot engage in advocacy - a not-uncommon, though inaccurate, claim - then that foundation needs a new lawyer.

Political will, as you may remember from our previous post, is the holy grail of advocacy work. The Millennium Campaign's call to rich countries shows the massive inequality of $2 trillion spent on the developing world over the past 49 years versus the $18 trillion that has been spent on financial institutions this year alone. Their short, and quite depressing ad blames the problem on failed political will (simplifying the issue slightly given the ad's 1 minute duration) and calls out to mobilize for change. Nevertheless, an interesting video and an important issue.

Many readers of this blog know our pals at Spitfire Strategies. They communicate strategically. It's just what they do, as witness this fine newsletter chock full of Useful Things for advocates on many issues.

I was particularly grateful for Ed Walz's item about working your state legislators during the summer recess- and the very handy link to state legislative calendars he included.

Ed and I presented last week to the terrific state-level advocates gathered in Kansas City for the Voices For America's Children National Forum. A shout-out to the Voices network: they are doing wonderful work. If you are a parent -- or if you were ever a child -- thank them for what they do!

a few excerpts from Ed's piece in Spitfire's newsletter to give you a taste of summer with your legislator:

Schools are not the only things gearing up for summer vacation. Federal and state legislatures frequently observe a summer recess. But that doesn't mean it's time to take a break from your policymaker outreach efforts. In fact, fewer distractions and greater opportunities for public events make summer a great time to connect with your policy targets. As the dog days of summer approach, Ed offers his top five summertime policymaker outreach ideas:

Give thanks. If a policymaker has taken a principled stand on your issue, a short letter to the editor of his or her local paper is a great way to say thank you - and get yourself a little attention in the process. Whenever possible, thank them by name, as Kansas Action for Children does here.

Extend an invitation. Seeing is believing. Inspire lawmakers by showing them the direct impact of your issue on the people they serve. While they are in the district for summer recess, invite them out for a site visit. (Bonus points if you turn the occasion into a media event - just make sure to give the policymaker's staff a heads up.)

We won't ruin the surprise...go here to read the rest!

Food, Inc., the latest activist documentary, shares a story many of us are afraid to hear: how deeply rooted the ties are between the corporate world and the food we consume. This may not be the best film to accompany your dinner. Or for that matter, to accompany anything from your average supermarket. The film raises some scary questions: is our food making us sick? What are the health costs to eating cheaply? What is the truth about agroculture biotech giants? The New York Times captured some of this in its film review:

The voice in the opening belongs to the ethical epicurean and locavore champion Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma," as well as a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine. (Somewhat confusingly, the movie uses voice-overs without clearly identifying who's issuing forth on the soundtrack.) Mr. Pollan, who periodically appears on screen seated at a homey-looking table, is a great strength of "Food, Inc.," as is one of its co-producers, Eric Schlosser, the author of "Fast Food Nation." These two embodiments of conscience, together with Mr. Kenner, chart how and why the villains not only outnumber the heroes in contemporary food production, but also how and why they outbluff, outmuscle and outspend their opponents by billions of often government-subsidized dollars.

Following in the wake of films such as "An Inconvenient Truth", activist documentaries can reach out powerfully to a vast audience. They often succeed at tapping into the fear factor. What is often much harder to accomplish within a film is creating an effective call to action. The New York Times gives the film credit for its checklist at the end telling viewers what they can do to change this depressing reality. At the same time, the review claims that the film doesn't quite do enough. In keeping its length short at 93 minutes, Food Inc had limitations on how in-depth it could actually go. While this is a step in the right direction, activists hope to see substantial follow-up from other organizations to mobilize around the film's powerful messages.

In the last week, the June 12 election results in Iran have sparked massive protests. Of course, contesting the results of an election is fairly commonplace (Florida recount, anyone?), but the present situation in Iran really is something else. As Nick Kristof of The New York Times eloquently describes it:

The unrest unfolding in Iran is the quintessential 21st-century conflict. On one side are government thugs firing bullets. On the other side are young protesters firing "tweets."

With foreign journalists barred by the Iranian government from reporting on the demonstrations sprouting up across the country, Twitter, YouTube, and various other social networking websites have become some of the only outlets of communication for Iranians and journalists on the ground. Hundreds of protesters have posted "tweets," videos, and photos, many of which can be seen here. With the outside world relying so much on these sites, the State Department even asked the folks at Twitter to postpone scheduled site maintenance until the frenzy surrounding the elections subsided.

If the Iranian government is already trying to censor the foreign correspondents and working to get them deported from the country, why are they not trying to block access to these networking sites? They may be trying to, but Twitter may still get in their way:

"Twitter is a unique property because it works easily with SMS," Enderle said. "That gives it a resiliency that isn't shared by other online-only sites," such as Facebook, he said. To block Twitter use, he said, Iran would either have to shut down text messaging on a one-to-one basis, a tedious and time-intensive process, or shut down text messaging throughout the country.

It is not so long ago (we've blogged about this!) that Twitter was something no one really seemed to understand. Yet over the past few months, Twitter has found its way into fundraising, celebrity stalking, promoting transparency and open speech, and more. Thanks to the latest in Iran, the evolution of Twitter continues to unfold.

Lots of management gurus talk about how to improve employees' morale by giving them a goal and then letting them decide how to achieve it -with a reward at the end for making the target. Or a parent might say: "Sure - I'll pay you $10 to mow the lawn, and I don't care how or when you get it done, as long as it's done by 6." This may result in the parent coming home at 6 to find a close-cropped lawn -- but a stolen goat pastured in the front yard.

So incentives for performance make sense - but sometimes it's a good idea to include a little guidance.

That's the basic idea behind offering "Performance Incentives for Global Health," new from our friends at the Center for Global Development. Ruth Levine and co-author Rena Eichler make the case for "starting with the result - more children immunized, for example -- and letting health workers and managers on the ground decide how to achieve them." Their report offer guidelines drawn from real-world experience. In an era of tightened budgets, incentives can improve outcomes at lower cost.

Azadeh Moaveni of Time wrote an interesting piece on a potential insight into Iranian youth's discontent over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and present economic hardships (high inflation, unemployment rates, and rising real estate prices). Inability to marry due to financial constraints is a rising trend in Iran's middle-class. Some are calling it the "marriage crisis" and it refers particularly to young people who cannot or who choose not to marry due to the fact that they simply can't afford it (primarily the cost of housing exceeds anything their earnings could afford). The connection to the elections, as Moaveni sees it, is as follows:

Why does this matter? Because Iran's government cannot afford to further alienate the young people that comprise more than 35% of its population. The young are already seething over their government's radical stance in the world and its trashing of the economy, and their anger easily expresses itself politically. As they decide how to vote in Friday's presidential election, young people like Farhad and Mahnaz are likely to base their decision in part on who they think will address the problem closest to their heart.

To mark how serious this issue is, the leading cause of Iran's high divorce rate in 2008 was reported to be husband's inability to establish an independent household. Many are getting the idea that it is much safer to stay away from marriage altogether. Ahmadinejad did respond to the crisis in November 2008 with a "semi-independent marriage" strategy which allowed young people to marry while still living with their parents. The response was outrage over gender inequality which allowed men an legal and easy outlet for sex and failed to provide women with any security.

Could it be housing prices and marital concerns that bring Ahmadinejad down? Millions of Iranian youth believe strongly enough that the marriage crisis could significantly influence the election results. We will find out soon enough.

USAID is moving towards increasing public accessibility to documents and training resources on evaluation. They've started with a simple website that houses some of their documentation on foreign assistance evaluation: guidelines, standards, types of evaluations, conducting evaluations and more. Upcoming in the next months, they will be posting a series of free courses (eight 1-hour courses) on evaluation in hopes that training on the highest level of evaluating can be accessible to all types of organizations throughout the world (English-speaking for now) but this is still a profound list of free resources for those who would like more training.

Foreign Policy's blog came across a true classic in a chilling combination of corporate messaging and what some might call a music video. Complete with photos of cute babies, men drinking in the name of Russian gas (Gazprom), and disturbing images of factories and drilling into the ground to extract heat, Gazprom's corporate anthem might even get you singing: "Lets drink to you lets drink to us, lets drink to all the Russian gas, that it never comes to an end though it's so hard to obtain."

There's a connection between the Global Interdependence Initiative (GII) and the President's "A New Beginning" speech in Cairo last week that has escaped public notice to date. I think the tale deserves to be told.

The Rockefeller Brother's Fund and GII published a report in 2004 entitled US in the World, which found strong domestic support for US global engagement based on a message frame centered on mutual respect, partnership, mutuality, and accountability. When I studied how the US could repair its image in the Muslim world for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), we tested a message based on the GII findings, urged by two advisors, David Devlin-Foltz of GII and Priscilla Lewis, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund program officer who had supported our research and the GII project.

We found the same message frame was the one that resonated the most with our focus groups in Jakarta, Casablanca, and - Cairo. The key to a better relationship with Muslim countries included listening more and speaking more humbly, respectful partnership with local initiatives for change and development, and support for the priorities of their people, including education, health, women's rights, democracy, and above all economic growth. The message was summed up in a postcard addressed to the White House by an Indonesian woman in one of our groups: "Help us with our economy, but let us govern our country!"

The CFR report and a memo summarizing it were sent to the White House staff at their request while they were working on the speech. No one else has actually tested U.S. policy messages among Muslims in various countries, as far as I know. And the major themes recommended - listening, respect, partnership, and various forms of assistance in areas where want Muslims want it most, all cropped up in the president's speech. There were many inputs to the speech, of course, but we hear that this was one of them.

One interesting little sign? The speech even borrowed the report's title ... "A New Beginning." Coincidence? Don't think so.

Aside from the bragging rights due GII, this story has two points. One is that framing is a global matter now. People abroad hear what we say at home, so consistency matters. The other is that framing research can have unexpected uses. The path from GII's US in the World launch in Washington to the American University in Cairo was quite a long one, but there was a link. Good ideas can reach a long ways.

Craig Charney is a guest blogger on the Switchblog and president of Charney Research