Vanity Fair #3

There is a feature-length article in an issue of Vanity Fair that caught my eye.  

The article is titled:

Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury

It is different from many Vanity Fair articles that I have read because it is about something other than fashion or pop-culture.  But I have also read a handful of political articles in the magazine.  Even still, this article really stands out to me.  The tone that the author takes and the presentation of the article are unlike any other political article I have read in Vanity Fair.  

It has always been obvious to me that Vanity Fair is geared much more toward a Liberal audience than a Conservative one.  This can be seen in any issue.  The magazine has always seemed to be a friend to both homosexuals and Democrats.  In a previous issue, Lady Gaga was raved about for her support of the gay community.  In that same issue, Obama's administration was defended in two separate articles.  

This article about Sarah Palin definitely hold true to the idea that Vanity Fair is a predominantly Democratic magazine, as are the majority of its readers.  It has a different tone about it, however.

I think the article seems so different because it isn't taking the side of the person it is about.  The article doesn't even relate to Sarah Palin in any way shape or form.  It does not show her any sympathy either.  It pretty blatantly makes fun of the politician-turned-celebrity.

The main argument in this article: Sarah Palin is a joke.  She is a sham.  This loud, proud woman is a rehearsed part... and she doesn't even play the role well.  The only people she can convince are the people in this country who are as idiotic as her.  That is the vibe this article gives me.

By simply glancing at the pages, without reading a single word, it is very obvious that the author does not take Sarah Palin seriously.  Little cut-outs of Sarah Palin's head are placed throughout the article.  In each cut-out, Palin is making a different, ridiculous-looking facial expression.  These looks just scream "don't take me seriously."

The author backs up his claim that Sarah Palin is a joke with many subclaims throughout the article.  His biggest subclaim: Sarah Palin is a rehearsed part.

The author claims that everything about Sarah Palin is rehearsed and unrealistic.  He notes how many of her speeches sound almost identical.  He notes how her children are placed around in her in ways that make her seem like supermom, when she is really using them for political and financial gain.  He notes how her strange use of words mirrors that of many (also idiotic) people who follow her.

The author makes it seem as though it is a shock that anyone can take Sarah Palin seriously.  He does a really good job of it, too.  

Though the author inserts many subclaims into the article, none stray very far from the main point.  They serve more as evidence for the main claim.  The help him convince people that Palin is, in fact, a joke.

Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair and VF.com

Not Alone in the Fight

Most of us here in the United States have never really been thirsty.  We have never known what it is like to be without safe water to drink, clean our bodies with, make our food with, or wash our clothes with.  The only time I was afraid to drink water from the faucet was when I was on vacation in Mexico.  Even then, I had access to safe bottled water.  Most of us have also always had the "luxury" of toilets, bathtubs, and sinks.

That's why it is so crazy to think that over a BILLION people on this planet don't have access to clean water or sanitation facilities (like toilets, showers, and sinks).

As stated by charity:water founder Scott Harrison, water is "the most basic of human needs."  That is why the World Water Crisis is such a HUGE issue.  That is why it is public enemy #1.

That is also why charity:water is not alone in the fight against unsafe water.  There are many, many other organizations that focus on the same issue.  One of the other organizations that I have stumbled upon is Water.org.  I researched the organization a bit, and found that it is very similar to charity:water.  

Now, I want to share a little background on Water.org, as well as the similarities it has with charity:water.  I hope that it may help you see how much of an impact these water-based organizations are making around the world.

About Water.org

Water.org began as two separate non-profit organizations: H2O Africa and WaterPartners.

H2O Africa was co-founded by actor Matt Damon (who also serves as the official spokesman).   Before becoming part of Water.org, it was a part of the Running the Sahara expedition and film project.  

The expedition consisted of three men who took on the challenge of running 4 thousand miles across The Great Sahara Desert in Africa.  The men undertook this expedition in order to raise awareness for the people around the world who do not have access to clean water.  A film crew followed the three men for every step of their journey.  The footage was later turned into a documentary film, which was narrated by Matt Damon.  Damon got the idea of starting a water-based charity during the planning of the Running the Sahara expedition.  H2O Africa was formally launched in September 2006.  

WaterPartners International was founded in 1990 by Gary White (who also served as the executive director of the organization).  It was an American non-profit developmental aid organization with the purpose of fighting the World Water Crisis.  

In July 2009, H2O Africa and WaterPartners merged to form Water.org.  It was co-founded by Matt Damon (of H2O Africa) and Gary White (of WaterPartners).  

charity:water & Water.org

As I said before, there are many similarities between charity:water and Water.org.  These similarities range from the overall idea behind the organizations, to the way that their ideas are carried out.  They are, in a sense, two peas in a pod.

The Mission

The first similarity is pretty obvious.  charity:water and Water.org are working toward a unified goal: putting an end to the World Water Crisis by providing safe drinking water and basic sanitation to people in developing nations.  

Creation

charity:water and Water.org were also created in similar ways, for similar reasons.  Scott Harrison and Matt Damon have both lived glamorous lives.  Damon, an incredibly successful actor and screenwriter, has walked the red carpet, attended A-list parties, and appeared on the cover of magazines for years.  Harrison, a former nightclub and party promoter, lived the lavish, fast-paced life of a celebrity for many years.  

Both men also decided to start  water-based non-profit organizations after spending time in Africa and coming face to face with extreme poverty.  

Damon has said that he got the idea after spending a day with a 14 year old girl in Zambia.  The girl was in charge of collecting water for her family.  Damon and the young girl walked over 2 miles to get to the closest water source.  The water, that came from a newly-built freshwater well, was safe to drink.  While walking to the well, Damon asked the girl if she wanted to live in her village when she grew older.  The girl told him that she wanted to move to a big city and become a nurse when she grew up.  Damon said he saw how this ONE well gave hope to thousands of people in the area, like the young girl.  It allowed for them to plan for the future.  That is when he decided that he wanted to help.  

Harrison got the idea after spending 8 months off the west coast of Africa as a photojournalist for Mercy Ships, which offers free medical care to those who do not normally have access to it.  While volunteering for the organization, Harrison saw thousands of people suffering from diseases that are fairly easily treated in places like the United States.  Mercy Ships gave many people in Africa a second-chance at a long, healthy life, and that is what Harrison aimed to do when he returned from his trip.

Application

Not only do charity:water and Water.org have the same mission, they also go about solving the crisis in very similar ways....

• Both raise funds for water projects through both private and public investors.  (The only difference is that charity:water is funded by grants completely.  Water.org is funded through both grants and loans.  They are the first in the field to use loans.)
• Both build freshwater wells and sanitation facilities (toilets, hand-washing stations).
• Both help educate the community on the importance of hygiene and sanitation.
• Both work with local partners to find solutions tailored to each community's specific needs.
• Both work with members of the community throughout the entire process.  
• Both see that a committee is elected to oversee the continued success and maintenance of the project.  
• Both promote gender equality by ensuring women are part of the committee in charge of the project. (It only seems fair that women have a say, considering they are often the ones who are in charge of collecting water.)
• Both sell merchandise (such as water bottles and clothing) to help generate funds and raise awareness.

Who They Have Helped

charity:water and Water.org have both helped build projects in multiple impoverished countries.  charity:water has funded over 3 thousand projects in 17 countries, helping over one million people.  Water.org has helped over 200 communities in 8 countries.

Here is a list of who they have helped:

charity:water 

1. Bangladesh
2. Cambodia
3. Central African Republic
4. Democratic Republic of Congo
5. Ethiopia
6. Haiti
7. Honduras
8. India
9. Ivory Coast
10. Kenya
11. Liberia
12. Malawi
13. Nepal
14. Rwanda
15. Sierra Leone
16. Tanzania
17. Uganda

Water.org

1. Bangladesh
2. Ethiopia
3. Ghana
4. Haiti
5. Honduras
6. India
7. Kenya
8. Uganda

Though charity:water has impacted the lives of more people than Water.org, it does not take away from what Water.org is doing.  They share a common goal.  They both want to put an end to world thirst.  They both want to bring safe water and sanitation to the entire world.  It doesn't matter who is making the bigger impact.  They are in essence a team.  

Information and photos courtesy of 

• charity:water
• Water.org
• H2OAfrica.org
• WaterPartners
• Looktothestars.org

The Founder's Story

I have spent a lot of time over the semester following charity:water.  I have learned about the charity itself, and all the amazing things it is doing for impoverished people around the world.  What I didn't take the time to learn about, until now, is the man behind the charity.  I had seen his picture and watched his trailers on the charity:water website, but I had never really thought about who Scott Harrison really is, and what brought him to create charity:water.

That being said, here is a recap of the life of the man who started it all :

Born and Raised...

Scott Harrison was born on September 7th, 1975 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  He was the first, and only child of Charles and Joan Harrison.  When Scott was young, his family moved to Hunterdon County, New Jersey.  

When Scott was at the young age of 4, his mother became ill.  His parents, trying to be more eco-friendly, had a new furnace installed in their home.  Unfortunately, the new furnace was cracked, and Joan Harrison was exposed to carbon monoxide.  

SIDE NOTE:  For those of you who may not know, carbon monoxide is essentially poison to humans.  It is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas.  Large quantities of carbon monoxide are toxic to humans and animals.  The most common symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are: headache, nausea, vommitting, dizziness, fatigue, and an overall feeling of weakness.  Carbon monoxide poisoning can also lead to more serious health issues, such as: confusion, disorientation, visual disturbance, seizures, coma, and even death.  One simple way to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning is to place carbon monoxide detectors (which are similar to smoke detectors) throughout your home.

Joan Harrison's immune system was destroyed do to her exposure to carbon monoxide.  She became debilitated, suffering from various serious chronic health issues.  Due to his mother's poor health, Scott grew up taking care of her and their home.

Life in the Big Apple...

When Scott was 18 years old, he left his home in New Jersey and headed to the big city: New York.  There, he enrolled in New York University.  Scott has said that he was not a diligent student NYU.  Nevertheless, in 1998, he graduated from the university with a bachelor's degree in communications.

Scott spent the next few years rebelling from his Christian upbringing.  He began working as a party promoter in Manhattan.  He made his living promoting New York City's top nightclubs and fahion events.  He threw lavish parties for many companies, including MTV, VH1, Bacardi, Elle Magazine, and the like.  He spent his time chasing after models, mingling with New York City's elite crowd, and indulging in drugs (including cocaine and ecstasy).  

Scott has described this period of his life with great distaste.  He claims that he was in a state of "spiritual bankruptcy... living selfishly and arrogantly."  He was "desperate, unhappy, and needed change." 

Scott decided that he needed to start a new life for himself.  He wanted to lead a life that was the exact opposite of the way he had been living in New York City.  In 2004, he did just that.

The Big Change...

In 2004, Scott Harrison left New York City, crossed the Atlantic, and headed to the shores of West Africa, where he would stay for the next 8 months.

Scott had signed up to volunteer for Mercy Ships, a Christian humanitarian organization.  Mercy Ships offered free medical care to people living in the world's poorest countries.  Top surgeons and doctors from around the world gave up their practices and extravagant lives to lend a hand to those in need.  These doctors performed free medical exams and operations for thousands of people who had no access to medical care of any kind.  

Scott took the position of photojournalist on the ship.  He traded in a fancy loft in Manhattan for a bunk bed in a small cabin on a ship.  He shared this cabin with roommates, and cockroaches.  He gave up VIP tables at all the top restaurants in the city for an "army-style" mess hall, which fed roughly 400 people.

Scott has said that he was "utterly astonished by the poverty" he saw in Africa.  He documented the life and human suffering, "often through tears."  The lives that these people lead were worse than anything he had ever imagined.  

Thousands of people would stand in line and wait to be seen by one of the doctors on the ships.  Many of these people were affected by abnormalities that people in the United States were not accustomed to seeing.  Scott met  and photographed people with huge tumors, cleft lips, bacteria-eaten faces.  He also met many people who were blind.  Many of these health issues were, in fact, seen in the United States. 

The difference was: they were treated in the United States.  They were, treatable, if not preventable.  Tumors could be caught early and removed.  Cleft lips could be corrected during infancy.  Clean water could prevent bacteria from eating away flesh.  And cataract surgery could help people to see. 

While volunteering for Mercy Ships, Scott fell in love with Liberia, a nation on the west coast of Africa that is home to roughly 3.5 million people.  The country had no public electricity, no running water, and no sewage system.  The people there lived on less than 365 dollars a year.  That's less than one dollar a day.  Liberia is where Scott put a face to the 1.2 billion people living in poverty around the world.  

Back in the States...

After spending 8 months volunteering for Mercy Ships, Scott Harrison left West Africa and returned to the United States.  He came back a changed man, however.  While on his trip, Scott had decided that he wanted to commit to a life of service.  He wanted to affect the lives of those in need for the better.  

While in Liberia, Scott learned that 80% of the diseases he encountered were caused by a lack of unsafe water and basic sanitation.  That is how he came to the conclusion that the world's lack of clean water was the biggest obstacle for the impoverished.  

Scott decided to start his own charity.  A charity that would help bring clean water to the people who really needed it.  A charity that gave 100% of people's donations directly to the cause.

And so, charity:water was born.

A Little More on Scott...

• While volunteering for Mercy Ships, Scott heard news that his mother, Joan, had suddenly recovered from her numerous health issues.  The Harrison family credits their undoubted Christian faith for her "miraculous" recovery.
• On September 26, 2009, Scott Harrison married Viktoria Alexeeva.
• Viktoria Harrison is from St. Petersburg, Russia and is now the Director of Design and Branding for charity:water.

Information courtesy of: 

• charity:water
• The New York Times
• Planet Green
• CBS
• webMD

Photos courtesy of:

• Contribute Media
• vikandscottgetmarried.com
• sva.edu
• travelagencyinsurance.com
• radaid.org

Vanity Fair #2

In my first blog about Vanity Fair, I talked about the difference between a short article and a feature-length article.  I had stated that the longer the article, the more substance.  To test this theory, I compared two articles in the October 2010 issue.  The first article I read was very short.  It consisted on less than half of a page.  The second article I read was nine and a half pages long, including photos.  (If the article had been text only, it would have been closer to 4 pages long.)

These two articles deny my previous claim more than they support it.  Sure, there are definitely differences between the delivery and style of the articles.  But when it comes right down to it, the articles manage to get out a similar range of information.  The shorter article is simply more to the point.  The longer article seems to drag the issue out much further.  The biggest difference seems to be that the longer article explains the background of the story pretty thoroughly.  The shorter article throws a lot of information at you without explaining it in depth.  The shorter article seems to assume that you already know about what is being covered.

The short article is titled "Once Upon a Time, at Harvard."  The main point of the article is that Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, went to Harvard University.  But there are also many subtopics in the article.  In a very small amount of words, the author is able to cover a lot of information.  The many topics that the author covers are:

1. Mark Zuckerberg is the creator of Facebook.
2. Mark Zuckerberg attended Harvard University.

                                Those are the main points.

1. Jesse Eisenberg is the actor who plays Zuckerberg in the film The Social Network.
2. Jesse Eisenberg is wearing designer clothing in the picture for the article.
3. Zuckerberg and 3 others came up with the idea behind Facebook while attending Harvard University.  
4. The original site was the "Harvard Connection."  It was a site that aimed to merge the personal data of students in ways that Facebook later would.
5. Two of the three people that Zuckerberg worked with rowed crew in the Olympics, yet you never hear their names around town.
6. Zuckerberg won a lawsuit against the 3 others for the rights of Facebook.
7. Jesse Eisenberg relates to the role of Zuckerberg.  Both are kind and quiet, and pretty anti-social.
8. Zuckerberg is worth roughly 4 million dollars.

                         Those are the other points covered in the article.

It is crazy to think that all of that information can fit into such a short article.  It is possible simply because that is all that is included in the article.  The author assumes that the reader knows about Facebook, the movie, and everything else.  

Let's compare this to a feature-length article....

The longer article is titled "Adrift..."  It is the cover story.  On the cover, it says " From It Girl to Jailbird: Lindsay Lohan.  What went so wrong... and how she can right herself."  The description on the front cover is accurate of the main point in the article.  The article is about how a young actress who was once hailed by respected senior actresses (Jane Fonda, Tina Fey, and Meryl Streep) became a tabloid sensation and jailbird.  It is about how a respected young actress became the laughing stock of the industry.  The article is relatively long and very wordy.  Like the shorter article, it brings up many subtopics, including:

1. Lohan's distinct voice.
2. Lohan's physical appearance (hair, clothing, jewelry, spray tan).
3. Her recent altercation with a waitress.
4. The president's knowledge of her situation.
5. Allegations that Lohan stole another lady's man.
6. When she became a household name back in 2004.
7. Her childhood and early acting career.
8. The court-ordered alcohol classes that she failed to attend.
9. Her 90-day jail sentence for violating the terms of her parole.
10. Her two DUI's.  

This article covers a huge range of information about Lindsay Lohan.  It spans all the way from her childhood to the present.  It covers the good, as well as the bad. It does do in a seemingly random way.  It jumps all over the place.  What really separates it from the other article is the depth of the information.  The article briefly explains who Lindsay Lohan is.  It explains what she did to get in trouble.  It explains for past success.  It explains a whole lot.  If there is any reader who was unsure of who Lindsay Lohan was before reading the article, they sure have an idea now.

I do still believe that in most cases, the longer the article in Vanity Fair, the more importance there is to it.  In this case, however, that is not the case.  The biggest difference between these two articles, and possibly others, is the depth in which the author explains what he or she is writing about.  The magazine must assume that everyone who reads it knows what Facebook is.  (And they are probably correct with that assumption.)  The magazine probably assumes that pretty much everyone knows who Lindsay Lohan is, but that many may not know exactly what brought her to this stage of her life.  

Different articles require different amount of background information.  It seems that the shorter the article, the less background information is needed.  Maybe the magazine assumes that people know more about the topics of the shorter articles.

Photos courtesy of Vanity Fair.

Ethos Water: Helping Children Get Clean Water

Much like charity:water, Ethos Water is concerned with putting an end to the World Water Crisis.   Ethos Water, a brand of bottles water, has a mission of "helping children get clean water." 

The World Water Crisis is one of the biggest public health issues of our time.  Ethos Water has chosen to bring clean water to children because they are affected most by the crisis.  The lack of safe drinking water is estimated to cause the deaths of nearly 4,500 children every day.  

Ethos Water was started in 2001 by Peter Thum.  After working in South Africa and spending time in communities that had no access to clean water, Thum got the idea to help raise awareness and fund water programs.  In August 2003, Thum launched operations as a bottled water company and formed the non-profit, Ethos International.  Funds from the business were to be invested in safe water programs.

In 2005, Starbucks bought the company from Thum for $8 million.  According to Starbucks, the company was acquired "as a way to meet customers' requests for a convenient source of portable water and also help support water projects in water-stressed areas."

Ethos Water products include 500 mL, 700 mL, and 1 liter bottles of water.  They are sold at most Starbucks in the U.S. and Canada, as well as premium retail outlets, and major grocery, convenience, and drug stores across the United States.  

Starbucks is "committed to contributing $10 million to humanitarian programs through the sales of Ethos Water."  For every bottle of Ethos Water sold in the United States, 5 cents goes to the Ethos Water Fund, a part of the Starbucks Foundation.  In Canada, 10 cents is donated.  

Ethos Water has already helped raise money for water projects in Africa and Asia.  The countries that these projects were built in are: India, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Unlike charity:water, however, Ethos Water only donates a small portion of its earnings to water projects.  At Starbucks in the U.S., the retail price for a bottle of Ethos Water is $1.80, but only $0.05 is contributed to the Ethos Water Fund.  

How is it that Ethos Water, with all the financial backing and resources of Starbucks, cannot afford to donate more to the cause, while charity:water manages to donate 100% to it?  

I am not trying to degrade what Starbucks and Ethos Water are doing, because it truly is a great cause and any amount of help is better than no help at all.  Still, I think that it may be time for Starbucks to re-evaluate its priorities and do everything in its power to help put an end to the World Water Crisis. 

Information from ethos-water.com and businessweek.com

The September Campaign

"BIRTHDAYS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD"

That is the idea behind the September Campaign.  

2006

charity:water was founded (or "born," according to the organization) on September 7, 2006.  It started on founder Scott Harrison's 31st birthday.  Armed with an idea, but no money or office, Scott decided to throw himself a birthday party.  Instead of gifts, he asked his guests to bring money.  700 people attended the party, each bringing $20 or more.  

Scott's 31st birthday bash raised over $15,000.  All of the money wet to a refugee camp in Uganda.  Six freshwater wells were built there.  

2007

Scott Harrison did not have a 32nd birthday party in 2007.  He simply asked people to donate $32 (for 32 years) to charity:water instead of buying him presents.  He also asked other people born in September to give up their birthdays and ask for donations instead of presents.  With the help of the 700+ people who joined the effort, charity:water raised over $150,000.  The money raised from the 2007 September campaign went to hospitals and schools in Kenya.  

2008

Over 900 people, including actor Matt Damon, joined the movement in 2008.  This time around, people were asked to donate $33 for Scott's 33rd birthday.  The nearly $1 million raised was dispersed between 33 villages in Ethiopia and helped over 50,000 people.

Ethiopia was chosen to receive the million dollars raised because of their immediate need for clean water.  More people in Ethiopia must live without water than in any other country in Africa.  The country has a population of over 70 million people.  One in four of these people are forced to live without clean water, and a mere 13% have access to the basic sanitation.  

People who live in Ethiopia don't even have the option of boiling their water to make it safe to drink.  In many areas, it is illegal to cut down trees for firewood.  Firewood, a very rare and expensive commodity in Ethiopia, is normally only used for cooking.

 2009

Scott Harrison and charity:water took it to a whole new level with the 2009 September Campaign trailer.  In the video, Scott gives a very heartwarming monologue about the history, and future, of charity:water and the September Campaign.  His words are paired with music and touching photos of water projects around the world.  Scott ups the ante and asks everyone to give up their birthdays, even if they do not fall in September.  He also asks for people to give up their wedding and anniversary presents.  He urges everyone to get creative.  The $1 million+ raised from the 2009 campaign went to water projects in Haiti.

September Campaign 2009 Trailer

2010

This year, the money raised by the 2010 September Campaign will go toward water projects for the Bayaka people in the Central African Republic.  The UN has referred to the C.A.R. as "the world's most silent crisis."  

Over the past 10 years, four civil wars broke out in the C.A.R.  40% of the country's wells, which were already few and far between, were destroyed.  Refugees from Chad and Sudan caused many communities to swell from 1,000 to 10,000 people very quickly.  

charity:water has already built 3 new wells and rehabilitated 50 in the C.A.R.  and has plans to build 15 new wells and rehab over 100 more.  These wells will provide water for thousands.  

The September Campaign is bigger than ever this year.  Actors Will and Jada Smith have jumped on board and given up their birthdays.  The top 3 fundraisers in the September Campaign will win a trip to Africa.  They will get the opportunity to go to Haiti with Will and Jada to see the completed wells.

September Campaign 2010 Video

I urge everyone to take part in the 2010 September Campaign and donate for a good cause!

Information courtesy of charity:water

Videos courtesy of youtube.com

Vanity Fair #1

If you were to simply glance at the cover of Vanity Fair, you would see a cover similar to any other girly, celebrity gossip type magazine.  It would probably remind you of, say, Cosmopolitan, Elle, or Glamour.

For example, the cover of the September 2010 issue of Vanity Fair has a picture of Lady Gaga plastered on the cover.  In the past, Lady Gaga has certainly been on the covers of virtually every pop-culture magazine in circulation.

It is true, that Vanity Fair is similar to these other girly magazines in many ways.  Like many others, Vanity Fair markets itself to the fashion-obsessed, as well as the pop-culture-obsessed reader.  It targets primarily women (and most likely the gay community).  Its target audience is moderately wealthy, and obsessed with what is "in."

There is something about the magazine that does make it stand out from Vogue or Cosmo, however.  It has the ability to appeal to a more worldly, fashionista.  Once you flip through the seemingly thousands of fashion advertisements, you can find a few articles of substance.  There does seem to be a trend, for the most part, when it comes to the length and placement of the articles.

The majority of the articles in Vanity Fair are rather short.  They may take up a quarter or half of a page.  The shorter articles, in the earlier pages of the magazine are of little consequence or importance to most.  They cover topics such as makeup, popular music, restaurants, clothing collections, and other fashion-related topics.  One of the short articles even turns the topic of sports into a fashion piece.

There are also a few medium-length articles as you venture further into the issue.  These articles cover topics with slightly more to them.  One of these articles gives an overview of the different neighborhoods one can choose to inhabit in NYC.  In another, actor James Franco writes about researching his latest movie role.  In a third medium-length article, an insider tells secrets about financial news and bad C.E.O.'s.  These articles, typically about one page long, offer a little more to the reader.

There are also a handful of longer, feature length articles.  These articles span anywhere from two and a half to ten pages in length and can be found towards the back of the issue. The cover story, about Lady Gaga, and a few other fashion-related articles, hold true to the typical girly magazine article.  There are a few, however, that would not be found in these other magazines.  There are two multiple-page articles concerning politics.  There is also a multiple-page article about an accountant who scammed a handful of well-respected people out of millions of dollars.  These articles contain a little more substance.  They cover "real" issues, and can draw in a certain type of reader.  They are for the reader who likes to be up-to-date with fashion, food, and music, but also has a head on her (or maybe his) shoulders.  These are for people who actually like to read.

There are also a few write-in sections in this issue of Vanity Fair.  The first section is actually a poll.  The subject of the poll focuses on what we are still willing to spend our money on amidst this economic crisis.  The results of the poll are split up by age group.  The questions use reference to sports, popular television shows, and the like.  Due to the references chosen, I would say that the poll is geared more toward the younger age groups.  Older people may not understand these references as well. There is also an actual write-in section where readers can submit their thoughts on previous issues of the magazine.  In this issue, people responded mostly to an article about Elizabeth Taylor and then men in her life.  This makes sense considering Elizabeth Taylor is a very well-known fashion and pop-culture icon.  There were also letter in response to an article about Sean Penn leaving Hollywood for Haiti.  The article that these responses were about seems to be geared toward the section of the magazine's audience that actually likes to read.

The audience that Vanity Fair is trying to compel is an easy one to guess.  The magazine, in whole, is a fashion magazine.  Who is typically concerned more with fashion? Women.  And how can I tell that these women are for the most part moderately wealthy?  Because people without a lot of money cannot afford the items that are being advertised.  I am sure, however, that there are some women who buy the magazine who are not wealthy.  These women must just wish that they could buy these things.  I also know that the magazine, in part, is geared toward the more intellectual fashionista because of some of the articles in the back portion of the magazine.  Articles about financials and politics entice a reader who knows about more than just fashion and pop-culture.

Photo courtesy of Vanity Fair.

All about water, charity:water

Did you know that nearly one billion people around the globe don't have access to clean drinking water?

Not a million, but a billion, with a "b."  

To give you a better idea of how many people that really is: 1 in every 8 people on the planet must go without clean, safe water to drink.

charity:water is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing clean water to these people in need.  The organization is doing more than simply quenching peoples' thirst, however.  charity:water is improving the overall well-being of communities in developing countries by building freshwater wells and hand-washing stations.  These new facilities will help: prevent disease, protect women and children, promote equality, and increase food supply

Disease

It is crazy to think that water, our most basic need, is often the cause of disease, and even death.  In fact, 80% of all disease worldwide is caused by a lack of safe water and basic sanitation.  Roughly 42,000 deaths occur every week.  If that statistic alone isn't shocking enough, children under the age of 5 make up 90% of these deaths.  This is because children are especially susceptible to disease.  Their bodies are too weak to fight off the usually preventable diseases. 

These diseases include:

• E. coli
• Salmonela typhi
• Schistosoma 
• Cholera vibrios
• Hepatitis A

According to the UN, "one tenth of the global disease burden can be prevented simply by improving water supply and sanitation."

Women & Children
In many developing countries, the responsibility of water collection falls on women and children.  This means that they are forced to walk several miles, there to and back from the closest water source.  It is very likely that this water is unsanitary and will make them sick.  

The long walk takes a great toll on the lives of these women and children....

• The time spent walking keeps women away from their families and children out of school.
• In order to transport water back to their communities, they must haul up to 40 pounds on their backs.  This leads to spine and back problems at a young age.  
• During the walk, they must often endure harassment and sexual assault 

With clean water closer to their communities, women and children will only have to walk for about 15 minutes instead of 3 hours.  Women will be able to stay at home and care for their families and children will be able to go to school and get an education. 

                               Gender Equality

                             

In many of the communities where charity:water projects are set up, men and women are not treated equally.  One of charity:water's goals is to bring some equality to these places.

In each community, both men and women take part in the construction and maintenance of water projects.  After the facilities are built, a water committee is put into place.  The community elects the 6 to 10 people that make up this committee.  For many women, being a part of this committee is their first opportunity to be in a leadership role.  

Food Supply

Water projects can help increase the food supply in the communities where they are built.  People can use the water to grow small gardens close to their homes.  With their own food supply secured, they can feed their families and sell extra food at the local market.  

The Future of charity:water

In the short 4 years of the organization's existence, charity:water has helped an impressive amount of people.  At the end of 2009, charity:water served its first 1 million people.  Even still, more needs to be done.

It is estimated that the world's population is going to grow by 3 billion in the next 40 years.  90% of this growth is expected to happen in developing countries where people are already scrounging for water to drink.

If you want to become a part of this great cause, there are many ways to help.  You can:

• start a fundraising campaign
• help raise money and collect donations
• go to mycharitywater.org
• donate 
• $20 can give one person clean water for 20 years
• go to charitywater.org
• wear charity:water gear
• help spread the word about the organization and the need for clean water
• go to charitywater.org

Information and photos courtesy of charity:water (charitywater.org)