Model Christy Turlington Burns Says Childbirth Deaths Are Avoidable

Christy Turlington BurnsShe’s on the cover of the June/July 2013 issue of Harper’s Bazaar. She’s one of Fast Company’s most creative people of 2013. And she’s determined to stop women from dying in childbirth.

Every day, roughly one thousand women die from the complications of pregnancy or childbirth, yet most of these deaths are preventable. That’s the message of model and activist Christy Turlington Burns’ documentary “No Woman, No Cry.”

The first-time filmmaker’s own experience with post-partum hemorrhaging after the birth of her daughter, Grace, and a 2005 visit to El Salvador, her mother’s homeland, inspired Turlington Burns to document maternal mortality worldwide.

“It’s a global tragedy,” she said at a screening of the film in New York City, so she decided to tell the stories of women in four different countries.

Turlington Burns first takes us to Tanzania, where a very pregnant Janet must walk five miles to reach a small clinic. She has no food with her, and the clinic provides none. Because her labor has not progressed enough, the health care worker sends her home. When Janet returns to the clinic, she’s so weak that she’s told she must now get to a hospital, a one-hour drive away. The van to take her costs $30, more than one month’s income for Janet’s family. Turlington Burns provides the money, and Janet gives birth to a healthy boy.

Tanzania lacks adequate health care facilities and medical personnel, as do most developing nations, with only one obstetrician for every 2.5 million people. With more and better facilities, women like Janet don’t need to die, as she surely would have if the film crew had not been there.

In Bangladesh, the issues are different. Health care facilities are often close by, yet most women will not use them because of the social stigma attached: it’s considered shameful to give birth outside the home. With proper education, however, attitudes can change. When a health care worker counsels Monica, who is ashamed to seek medical help, she finally agrees to have her baby in a hospital, leading to a happy outcome – the birth of a son.

In Guatemala, Turlington Burns encounters yet another issue. Abortion is illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. So when a young woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, her illegal abortion almost kills her; it takes nearly six weeks of hospitalization for her to recover. Changing religiously based norms is probably the toughest challenge regarding maternal health, but it can happen, Turlington Burns argues.

Although 99 percent of childbirth-related deaths occur in the developing world, the United States has vast room for improvement, ranking 50th in maternal mortality. Women of color are especially vulnerable, as are those who have no health insurance.

“Being uninsured and pregnant is a disaster,” said Jennie Joseph, a Florida midwife featured in the film.

Ironically, the only woman who dies of childbirth-related complications in the documentary is an American woman who succumbs to an amniotic fluid aneurism. Turlington Burns shows the toll her death takes on her family with sensitivity and compassion.

Two years in the making, “” can be purchased on iTunes and Amazon.

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of WikileaksIf you’re looking for a Michael Moore style documentary where you know the good guys from the bad guys, then this movie is not for you. While the first fifteen minutes appeared to detail the heroism of Julian Assange against the misdeeds of the U.S. government, the following two hours depicted a far more complex reality in which people may do the right things for the wrong reasons, or the wrong things with laudable goals in mind. Director Alex Gibney doesn’t give us a Moore fable or an Oliver Stone lesson in propaganda, but rather a complex study of an Icarus-themed Assange and a tortured but saint-like Private Bradley Manning.

When Assange dumped thousands of documents about the U.S.’s handling of the Afghanistan war without redacting the names of the locals who worked with the U.S. government, Assange went from hero to arrogant bastard. For him it was more important to get the word out regardless of whom it hurt or killed. Admittedly, Assange’s WikiLeaks turns out to be more a one-man organization than a dedicated band of Robin Hoods who steal from the U.S. government to give to the world. Did Assange care that people might die to facilitate the better free flow of information, or was he simply unable to redact the affected peoples names with a lack of staff and approaching deadlines for the release of information? We may never know.

As we delve into the personalities of Assange, and Private Manning who illegally downloaded hundreds of thousand of documents from the U.S. government, we find that both men are damaged goods. Assange was an unloved child whose mother divorced several times and who was shunted around more than thirty residences in Australia. Manning was a small, slightly effeminate gay who was bullied in school and not sure of his gender. From a divorced family with an alcoholic mother, he also felt himself very much alone. Whatever their environment and resultant personality failures, both were computer geniuses.

But overarching questions remain. When can the most powerful government in the world keep information hidden, and when must it release it? Is the embarrassment of inadvertently killing journalists in Iraq enough of a reason? Is potentially outing collaborators sufficient, and who decides and why and how?

In the Army, you’re supposed to follow orders, not your conscience. So, for Private Manning, it was a three-fer, not only was he a lonely homosexual with a stronger conscience because of what he had experienced, but he also felt that he was a woman trapped in a man’s body – and he had no one to turn to for help. The only surprise was how long it took him to unravel or to grow a pair – it all depends on your point of view.

So, if there is a hero in this mess, it’s probably not Julian Assange, whose dark side was more fitted to playing Darth Vader than Han Solo. Two damaged boys grow up to be damaged young men who want to get even with society, or, from a rosier point of view, men who want to change society and the U.S. government into something it isn’t. Beware of what you wish for: The consequences may be more severe than you imagined.

Provenance and the Antiquities Trade

Those who are involved in the trade of antiquities need to learn the history of ownership of an object, known as its provenance, to ensure that they are not buying a stolen or looted object. We now live in a world in which provenance is almost more important than the artifact itself.

In 1970 it became illegal to export antiquities from many countries. Therefore, if an antiquity arrived in the US before 1970, and that can be proven, then it’s in the US legally and there is little need to worry about a foreign government claiming it.

But what should happen to the hundreds of thousands of antiquities whose provenance is completely unknown or only partly known? Many of these items do not have a good provenance for several reasons.

First, until the 1990s or even later, most collectors cared much more about the quality and beauty of an item than the line of succession of its previous owners. Second, dealers, for business reasons, did not want collectors to know the name of the previous owner to prevent collectors from going directly to them. Third, owners are now so afraid of running afoul of government restrictions that they no longer want their names associated with their artifacts, so the new owners are only told incomplete information, such as “from a Los Angeles collector, acquired in the fifties.” Fourth, while owners do usually keep a bill of sale for their most expensive pieces, many owners either do not keep or their heirs discard documentation of moderately priced items.

Some in the archaeological world want all artifacts sent back to their countries of origin, despite the fact that several countries can claim the same artifact, that some countries don’t have the money or space to house them, and that volatile countries have had museums and storehouses looted in times of unrest.

The only way to maintain the world’s artifacts is to have them as broadly dispersed as possible, between the native countries, museums and private collectors, who frequently donate altruistically or selfishly to museums. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in a situation in which major and minor artifacts are donated only to the museums of countries whose requirements are not as strict as our U.S. ones.

Some archaeologists would like to abolish the sale of antiquities in the hopes of preserving archaeological contexts - the place where an item was found and the other objects it was found with. However, a ban would just drive the trade underground.

Why The World Isn’t Flat: Debunking Thomas Friedman

Ha-Joon Chang, a South Korean economist, gave a lecture for the New America Foundation on February 1, 2008 titled Why The World Isn’t Flat. The lecture was on why developing nations should look at the history of successful nations, rather than just adopting the orthodox free market approach being demanded of them. Chang’s speech was based on his book , in which he demonstrates why unfettered capitalism is not a good idea for developing countries.

The conventional wisdom states that out of thirty or so successful countries, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were the only ones to succeed with subsidies and government intervention while all the others had an orthodox free market, but Chang says that the opposite is actually true – the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Switzerland were the only countries that managed to succeed with an orthodox free market.

Chang gives Japan’s support of Toyota as one example of the success of protectionism. He also brings up Alexander Hamilton’s support for a protected manufacturing economy in the United States.

A metaphor Chang uses to refute Thomas Friedman’s “flat world” in which all countries compete on a level playing field, is that of boxing’s weight classes. It makes no sense for an economic lightweight like Honduras to want to go up against a heavyweight like the United States. The global economic competition is a game of unequal players. The developing countries like Honduras need a titled playing field on which they can protect and subsidize their producers in order to compete.

Ha-Joon Chang’s full lecture is available to view below: