While your mother never made good on her threat to send your unfinished dinner to starving children in Africa, I recently heard about a local non-profit that just about will.

About two weeks ago I caught an episode of Frontline on PBS. Mohammed Yunus had just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work developing microcredit and this episode focused on how the microlending was affecting Uganda. Much of the episode dealt with a non-profit in San Francisco called Kiva.org, that finds donors around the world to contribute to existing microfinance organizations through the internet. Potential lenders can view entrepreneurs in need and make targeted donations as low as $25 using PayPal.

The borrowers reside mostly in Africa or Latin America. Requested loans are usually less than $1,000 and fund simple businesses like selling fish or tailoring. Kiva provides a short biographical sketch of each entrepreneur and includes an expected schedule of repayment, usually 6 – 12 months. Donations go local partners that distribute the loans and collect repayments over time. Once repaid the lender can withdraw the loan or re-loan. Since these are loans, not donations, there is an expectation of repayment With that comes an element of risk. Amazingly Kiva’s repayment rate is 100%, just slightly above the 97% rate for microloans wordwide.

The day this episode of Frontline aired the number of people visiting Kiva’s website overwhelmed the servers and shut down the site. Kiva quickly had to ask for donations to pay for a new server to handle the newfound attention. Happily, Kiva is now back online an in need of contributions.

I just came across this FAQ on election day law written by Stanford Law students. It addresses some interesting questions and laws I had never heard of before. I know the Boalt Law School, here at Berkeley has a similar group but I can't find a website.

Please let me know if you find any links worth posting. Happy Election Day.

This week I came across a story about a 24 year old security researcher/PhD student named Christopher Soghoian who developed a fake boarding pass generator on his website. There you could enter your “information” and out would come a realistic looking ticket like the kind you print from home for an early check in. If you’re experience is anything like mine then waking up to the security line at the airport means I hand my boarding pass and ID to the TSA screener who makes sure my face and name match on all the documents and scribbles something before letting me through. The agent never scans the barcode. These passes are meant to get a person past the screener but not onto the plane.

I’m terrified. After the terrorist plot to blow up planes using bomb material concealed in liquid was foiled, all forms of liquid was banned from terminals. The TSA finally realized the weakness in a plan that sought to deal with the plot retroactively, and has loosened the restrictions. Now I think I can bring four ounces of liquid and medicine with a prescription label. But this hole shows us a major problem with not only the implementation of security measures but our process for dealing with the problems.

Soghoian designed the script to identify this weakness, not to exploit it. “I want Congress to see how stupid the TSA's watch lists are. Now even the most technically incompetent user can click and generate a boarding pass. By doing this, I'm hoping [Congress] will see how silly the security rules are. I don't want bad guys to board airplanes but I don't think the system we have right now works and I think it is giving us a false sense of security.” The day after the story became public on wired.com, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) called for Soghoian’s arrest and for the site to be taken down; he later rescinded the call for arrest.

That day the FBI visited Soghoian in his home, but he was not arrested. That night the FBI returned and seized his computers with a warrant signed at 2 a.m.. Am I wrong or does it seem that the government is less interested in learning about these security vulnerabilities than punishing someone for revealing them?

Most interestingly is one of the people who identified this security vulnerability before this incident was Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who did so in 2005 press release.

In the most recent print issue, Sheila Bapat asked the question "Do clean money elections give women a better chance of winning?" (You can read the full article by clicking the link on the left.) One of the women discussed in the article, Gabrielle Giffords, is performing so well in her bid to replace retiring House member Jim Koble that the other party has abandoned advertising for her opponent. However Giffords has never run "clean". The former state senator, argued in the article that "As a Democrat and as a woman, I feel it is important that I build a fundraising base." This seems to be paying off for her. She has transitioned her success fundraising and building support at the state level to Federal races, which are never "clean elections".

Sen. Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens’ anti-Net Neutrality bill (S. 2686) will soon be coming before the full Senate. The bill not only seeks to destroy the principle of Net Neutrality, but ties it in with a package of other issues favorable to telecom and cable companies. This has enabled them to frame the debate around some of these consumer friendly aspects, but it also obfuscates what the debate is about.

Due to the favorable response to the principles of Net Neutrality, opponents, namely the big three telecom companies and cable providers, have tried to make the debate about cable choice and video franchising. The list of Net Neutrality supporters is impressive, including supporters as diverse as the SEIU, Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org.

Recently a poll, seen here, released by The Glover Park Group (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) purports to show that attitudes are overwhelmingly favorable toward the Stevens bill. But one look at the survey design and it’s clear that this is little more than a push poll. It is a wholly dishonest measure of public opinion with obvious biases. You don't need the filled in responses to see the problems with its construction. Here’s why:

Page 2
Likelihood if More Cable TV Choice
If there were more choices for cable television service in your area, how likely is it that you would see:
Lower prices
Better customer service
The delivery of new technologies and enhanced services to customers
Higher quality programming, such as high definition television and video on demand

Any reputable pollster will tell you that there is no value in these questions. This question falsely assigns expertise to non-experts. The respondents, first of all, are only offered answers that place “more choices for cable television” in a positive light. They are not asked about any of the drawbacks from the service or even told that there are drawbacks. In short the respondent is unqualified to answer the question and it should be no surprise that these are supported by over 70 percent of respondents.

Page 3
Importance of Legislative Elements
Now I’m going to read you some statements that describe how passing this legislation might benefit consumers. For each statement, I’d like you to tell me how important it is to you, personally?

Create a “Consumer Bill of Rights” that guarantees all consumers full access to legal content on the Internet and prohibits Internet access providers from blocking, degrading, altering, modifying, or changing the data consumers send or receive over the Internet.

If the questionnaire is worded exactly as it was read to the respondent-as you would expect in a public poll-then something is fishy. Where is the description of “this legislation” that was read to the respondent? My inclination is that they didn’t include it because the description was obviously leading. However, nothing else about the poll shows that an effort was made to hold back a bias. So make of this question what you will.

Each of the statements is rated positively by over 75 percent of respondents. Yet again, this is meaningless. These are “costless” answers. They don’t portray any useful information and the respondents aren’t asked to internalize any tradeoffs that come from supporting the statements. It’s the polling equivalent of the “Lower taxes, More services” paradox.

Page 4
By now this really starts to feel like a push poll, and it’s easy to tell the survey was written to persuade, not to gauge attitudes. The questions are ordered to create a positive feeling for the telecoms before asking anything about tradeoffs or costs. That 42 percent of voters say it is most important for their Senator to support the legislation because of “government emergency response efforts” and “Provide funding to help deploy broadband in… schools and libraries” should come as no surprise.

Want Senator to Vote For/Against the Legislation
Based on what you know now, would you want the Senators from your State to vote for or against this legislation?

Here’s the crux! This shows more about how badly the poll was constructed than attitudes. Up to now, the survey has framed the legislation in a very limited way and, of course, in a highly positive light. Then it asks if the respondent would like their Senator to support it. Basically they pit the first option: helping emergency responders, against a second option: NOT helping them. Effectively this question asks “Would you like your Senator to support emergency response efforts or not support these efforts?” It’s no surprise that 80 percent said yes.

Page 5
Which is Most Important to You?
Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:
Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV
OR
Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

Wow! This question might as well ask “What’s better, puppies or toxic waste?” In a reputable poll questions should be neutral and allow the respondent the freedom to answer in without leading him there. Notice how the first option utilizes positive words “benefit,” “choice,” “increased competition” and “lower prices.” The second is rife with negatives: “barring…specialized services” and “for a fee.” This question frames the issue along several dichotomies, not just positivity vs. negativity; but high cost vs. low cost; and choice vs restrictions.

A poll best serves its purpose by telling the client where the public’s attitudes are. The consultant best serves the client by interpreting the survey data, analyzing its meaning and explaining to the client how to increase support. This particular survey is completely useless to a client actually seeking public attitudes. There is no doubt in my mind that this was commissioned to be released so that the results could give the illusion that the public is already behind the Stevens bill.

The Spring 2006 issue of PolicyMatters is now available online for your viewing pleasure. You'll notice that the Current Issue icon on the right side of the screen now leads to the .pdf of the new issue. On the left side I've replaced the the table of contents to reflect the current slate of articles. I'll fix the titles in the next few days, so they link directly to individual articles.

Greg I am not nearly as enthusiastic about the effectiveness of Clean Elections to fix the problems with money in politics. Clean money programs do more to obfuscate the influence of money in politics than eliminate it. While clean money programs will enable non-traditional candidates the opportunity to run for office (the upcoming issue of PolicyMatters carries an article describing how Clean Elections help women's chances running for office) I don't see how it will solve any of the real problems associated with money in politics.

The sudden debate about illegal immigration seems to have removed Rep. Tom Tancredo's impetus for running for President. Tancredo, who admits he had no real chance of winning, planned to wage an issue campaign to force a national conversation on immigration.

The surprise mobilization of half a million people in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and the protests that have followed, brought immigration to the public's immediate attention. What that attention is saying, however, isn't very clear.

Starting this week Deb Kong will be providing a running commentary on the immigration battle.

Deb is a first year student at GSPP. Previously she was a journalist at the Philadelphia Inquirer, San Jose Mercury News, most recently the Associated Press where she covered race and immigration issues.

We are proud to have her.

In one of my favorite episodes of Sports Night, Robert Guillaume’s character said that he didn’t worry that money he gave to the a panhandler would be spent on beer. In fact he hoped it would be spent on beer because he didn’t have any illusions about his dollar changing that person’s life. That attitude strikes me now as blind to half the problem. What can be done to change the life for about the same amount of money.

A few months ago I heard about a program that gives free voice mail to the homeless to help them find jobs. Fifteen years ago Community Voice Mail started in Seattle realized that one of the greatest barriers to lifting yourself off the streets is the difficultly in getting a job. When a potential employer can’t get in touch with the applicant, her chances of getting the job disappear. The same holds for when she reveals her homeless. An employer’s discrimination against homelessness may be based on a firmer foundation than gender and racial discrimination. I especially like how the strategy helps obscure the person’s negative characteristics.

While watching the Academy Awards tonight, the President of the AAMPS mentioned that six movies are being filmed in New Orleans employing over 600 locals. It was news to me. I wouldn't have thought of filmmaking as part of the recovery effort. But just like tourism it was (is?) a flourishing source of revenue in the city. At the state level is the Governor's Office of Film & TV, appropriately part of the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, and the city has the same bureaucracy. The state offers tax incentives to productions that spend over $250,000 in Louisiana within a 12 month period. One of interesting conditions is that the production must pay all state sales tax on purchases made in connection with production. Without knowing more about the LA tax system I won't venture a guess as to how the city of New Orlaesns shares the revenue. But of course production revenue doesn't stop with tax revenue, since the crew takes full advantage of local economy.

And the saga continues....

Last Friday a Federal Judge prolonged the anxious misery for millions of Blackberry addicts by declining to rule on an injunction that would have compelled Research In Motion to shut down Blackberry Service for infringing on the patent held by NTP. 3.2 million Users took a sigh of relief and Wall Street brokers collectively took a collective step away from their windows as the stock price went up 8.2% to $75.28.

But what's left (until the next court appearance) is a confusing standard of patent protection when the "public interest" opposes patent law.

A post I left a few weeks ago about the strange connection between employment and healthcare, apparently mirrors a debate that took place in 2000 between Adam Gopnik and Malcolm Gladwell in the Washington Monthly.
A number of blogs have recently resurrected the debate, in which Gopnik and Gladwell discuss the merits of the Canadian system. Malcolm Gladwell, who once took the role of the single-payer skeptic, has come around. He tells the tale in his new blog. It's actually a two parter.

It's worth a read, especially for his simplistic but effective comparison of healthcare to public transportation.

Ray Bradbury wrote an editorial in the L.A. Times this week hoping to restart the debate for a monorail system in Los Angeles. In his assessment the traffic is five years away from total gridlock. The city’s slow and costly effort to develop an underground subway system has had a history of funding and infrastructural problems. The creation of a light rail, which includes low emission “trains” that can travel along streets, has been in various stages of development since 2001.

6:54 Fewer abortions and teen pregnancies are falling. Personal responsibility = fufillment.
"Dems you shoul dbe proud of this record"
6:55 Activist courts wanna redefine marriage. Treatable diseases should be treated to. Pessimists are wrong.
6:56 I picked two, count 'em two, Supreme Court justices. YES!!!!
6:56 This was a big news day. Sandra Day O'Connor retired.
The cameraman said "where is she? Why isn't she sitting with her old colleagues. I cant find her."
6:57 Human-Animal hybrids better not be sold on ebay. That would be unacceptable.
6:59 My wife is working on the helping america's youth initiative. She's not going to screw this up like someone did with health care. Wink!
7:00 We're rebuiliding stonger levees in NOLA. We really need to fix things there. The schools are bad too, and residents haven't had good opportunities.
7:01 Blacks disproportionatley have AIDS. This needs to be fixed! They deserve better access to medicine.
7:02 Metaphor about arcs and shores. Now let me pause and compare myself to Lincoln and MLK.
Obama not pleased.
God Bless America.

6:33 Reauthorize the PATRIOT ACT to prevent crime in Africa.
Ben Nelson and Republicans applaud.
6:34 Let me tell you why I like eavesdropping. Other people did it first. It maybe, just maybe, could have prevented 9/11
[ABC discovered picture in Picture. Hillary doesn't like the Prez]
6:36 OK let me backtrack. Good Presidents you read about in history books didn't believed in isloationism. And neither do i.
6:37 The economy too. 4.6 Million new jobs, that's more than Japan and EU combined.
6:38 China gives us uncertainty.
Unexpected applause.
6:39 We dont retreat. In nation building or economic growth. Americans need more of ther money. Tax cuts were good and led to uninterrupted economic growth. Please don't let my tax bill to phase out. Responsibility=Permanant cuts.
Democrats sit for this one.
6:41 We've reduced the growth of not security discretionary spending. I will cut more programs to save $14B. Let's cut the def in half in 2009.
McCain takes a clap.
6:42 Line item veto please! I'd really appreciate.
Joke about Bill Clinton. Hillary not amused.
6:43 What will congress do if we dont cut taxes.
6:43 Dems take a bow. We kept you from saving Social Security.
6:44 I want a commission to help save SS from baby boomers. Greedy boomers!
6:45 We want people to buy American.
6:45 Let's talk about Immigration. I want orderly and secure borders. More enforcement and protection. And humane guest worker policy.
6:46 Affordable healthe care is smart too. Gov't is meeting responsibility of providing for the poor already. We will use technology to save money.
6:47 Lawsuits are driving docs out of business. Many women don't have OBGYNs
6:48 America is addicted to oil from unstable regions. Threshold of incredible advances. 22% increase in clean energy research. We want coal plants and solar energy
AND wait for it
Nuclear Energy.
6:49 I like the Prius and Enthanol from wood. lets do this in six years. Deal?
6:50 By 2025 we can get away from Mideast oil.
[Is that optimistic or pessimistic? I have no idea.]
6:50 Here's a new one fro those education wonks "american competitiveness initiative." Math + science + reaearch + development + nanotechnology = impoved quality of life. By the way, Kids: You have to take AP classes and Ace math tests. It's really important.

6:23 The military will make military decisions. Not the politicians, in Warshinton.
6:24 Don't crititicze me! Only Republicans clap.
6:24 Leaving Iraq will mean handing Iraq to Zarqawi and Bin Laden.
6:25 Soldiers know the costs of urban warfare. I'm going to read a letter written by a fallen Staff Sargent addressed to his family.
6:27 Military families sacrifice too.
[I wish he would talk about policy already.]
6:29 Egypt voted! Palestine did to. THEY MUST RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AND DISARM, WORK FOR LASTING PEACE.
6:30 The Mideast will democrtitize. I assert this as true.
Iranian government better not get nukes. We respect you an your conutry and we want tot be best friends. But you gotta be free first.
6:32 I know about Africa too. Disease is really bad there. Especially AIDS and Malaria.

Hello Readers,
I will be liveblogging the State of the Union. I'm sitting in the IGS Library at UC Berkeley surrounded by Political Science Professors and a number of students. I'm watching ABC where George Stephanopolus is giving instant political commentary. I'll try to leave partisanism at the door. Expect some sarcasm!

6:05: Handshakes, handshakes, handshakes.
6:09 Bill Livinggood announces the prez, he kisses a lot of cheeks and makes it to the podium.
6:11 Prez hands the speech to the the Speaker and the VP. Thats it He's met his constitutional obligation. That was easy.
Prex introduced to US. Congress applauds. I hope this voice over commentary goes away
6:12 W starts talking. Honors the passing of Corretta Scott King. Smart opening!
6:13 He is humbled. That's the second time tonight. Our differences should be respected. Prez will play game
6:14 IT'S OFFICIAL STATE OF UNION IS STRONG.
6:15 The US will continue to lead by our leadership.
Fighting terrorism is not "idealism"
6:16 Democracies respect the rights of their neighbors. Freedom = respect
McCain is not a smiler!
6:16 Democracy is spreading, look at Afganistan and Iraq
He didn't mention Palesstine but mentioned Iran. Hmmmm.
6:17 Radical islam is an ideology of terror and death. They are totalitarian, and completely unlike us. They use fear. And blow up things.
Applause for "loving freedom"
6:19 Isolationism is not going to happen. There is no honor in retreat. Believing in our own ideals means that we must be involved in combatting terror worldwide. (THESIS)
6:19 He just invoked the holocaust. Well...liberating camps as a parallel to fighting terror.

Successful conversations involve more than one speaker, and likewise this forum should be a conduit for conversation and debate among the Public Policy community. The PolicyMatters Blog welcomes signed comments from readers. If you feel that you can make a useful observation, engage the debate or otherwise add to the conversation we invite you to leave a comment. But note, it is the policy of the PolicyMatters Blog to only accept signed comments. We think it's only fair to our authors.

The cover of Time Magazine this week shows that the editors still have a sense of humor. Smiling, arms akimbo in a Ford manufacturing plant stands William C. Ford Jr. next to the words “Would You Buy a New Car from This Man.” The funny thing is, just Monday Ford announced it would shut down 14 plants and layoff 30,000 workers as part of its massive revitalization plan begun in 2002. Sure new cars will still be manufactured, but Ford was once a company that raised wages so that employees could afford the cars they assembled. I can think of several thousand people who won’t be interested in buying a Ford this year.

PolicyMatters, the student-run Journal of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, will shortly be launching the PolicyMatters blog. Just as the journal aims to marry insightful analysis of pressing policy problems with an accessible style, the blog will scrutinize the policy issues of the day. It will be a hub for policy conversations within the GSPP community and the wider policy community.

This Blog marks the introduction of PolicyMatters to the online policy communtiy, producing informative, readable, and energetic debate. Likewise the PolicyMatters blog will be a group effort with up to 10 regular contributors representing varied intellectual interests and fields. Our bloggers will primarily consist of students, professors, and policy practitioners with connections to GSPP or UC Berkeley.