Are you skeptical? Photo: cameronparkins

Here are seven ways you can evaluate Matador’s claims about big oil… and to fact-check online content in general:

1. Is the author transparent?
First things first: Who is the author? Does he or she use his or her own name? What background or biographical information does the writer give about himself or herself? How does this information provide insight into the information and perspective the author presents?

Sometimes, legitimate reasons exist for an author to obscure his or her identity, but generally, if a writer isn’t attaching his or her name to the writing he or she is publishing, then you have every reason to be skeptical about the claims the writer is making– or, at the very least, the writer’s motives.

2. Believe but verify.
Even if the writer is transparent, take some extra steps to learn more about the author if you’re still skeptical about his or her background or motives. A simple Google search is likely to pull up more background information about the writer… though a caveat is in order here: not everything you read online is true, so you’ll need to subject the “facts” you’re gathering against other sources of information.

3. Consider the article within its context.
Where is the article published? Who’s behind it? What are their stated values? If you can’t find this information, your skepticism may be in order.

4. Evaluate sources.
Does the author indicate the source of the information he or she is presenting? Are those sources primary? Does the author link back to those sources? In his article about his experiences at the Chevron protest, Matador author Ryan Van Lenning included publicly available source information about Chevron CEO David O’Reilly’s salary. You could check that information independently if you had any doubts about its accuracy.

Photo: quacktaculous

5. Can the writer spell? Can he or she construct intelligible sentences? Is the article subjected to any editorial process?
Almost anyone can post writing online these days. And almost anyone can say anything. But a few simple questions will help you screen some of the vetted writing and help you distinguish it from the Internet equivalent of scribbled musings of a raving lunatic. Is the writing clear and intelligible? Has it been subjected to any editorial scrutiny before it reached your computer screen? If the answer is no, you’re right to have some doubts.

6. Assess the tone.
The articles Matador publishes tend to reflect a particular viewpoint. My own articles about big oil clearly convey my belief that big oil–Chevron, Shell, and others–are responsible for environmental and human rights abuses… a belief I hold because of my experiences interviewing industry experts and witnessing environmental and human destruction firsthand.

But these articles are also free of hyperdramatic polemics. If the article you’re reading is hysterical in its tone, then you’re right to raise your eyebrows and search for some confirmation of the author’s claims.

7. Check yourself.
No one is entirely objective. But if your reaction to an article is unusually strong, check yourself as much as the author and site whose work you’re reading. What may be causing you to react so viscerally? The answer may be more about your issues than those of the author.

Community Connection:

Talk with us! How do YOU evaluate what you read on Matador and other online magazines? Share your suggestions in the comments!

Photo: David Gilbert, Amazon Watch

How many activists does it take to shut down the main entrance to the headquarters of the 2nd largest U.S. oil corporation?

Six.

Well, six, plus dozens of supporters and organizers of an international campaign called The True Cost of Chevron.

The purpose was to draw attention to Chevron’s environmental and human rights abuses from Richmond, California– the location of one of its largest refineries– to Ecuador, where a judge is set to decide this fall on the long-standing lawsuit that seeks damages of $27 billion for toxic environmental pollution in the Amazon rainforest and its communities.

The setting was Chevron’s annual shareholders’ meeting in affluent San Ramon, California, about 30 miles from its second largest refinery in Richmond. It was too close for me not to miss.

Photo by author

Blocking the entrance was not the goal of the demonstration. Rather, it set the stage for two events that marked the day: First, proxy shareholders came from the many countries around the world where Chevron operates to share the stories and concerns of their respective communities with the Board and Chevron CEO David J. O’Reilly (the 15th highest paid U.S. oil CEO).

Second, the announcement and discussion of “An Alternative Annual Report” entitled “The True Cost of Chevron” that is in striking contrast to Chevron’s own 2008 Annual Shareholder Report, which highlights its remarkable financial success, boasting nearly $24 billion in profits last year. “What Chevron’s annual report does not tell its shareholders is the true cost paid for those financial returns, or the global movement gaining voice and strength against Chevron’s abuses,” reads the alternative report.

Organized by a broad coalition of organizations, including Amazon Watch, Global Exchange, Justice in Nigeria Now, CorpWatch, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Rainforest Action Network, and Crude Accountability, the Alternative Report chronicles abuses in Nigeria, the Philippines, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Burma, Canada, and the USA.

It covers everything from Chevron’s successful lobbying of high-level political connections to air pollution, toxic spills, industrial accidents, discriminatory labor practices, human rights abuses, and environmental and health devastation. Its demands to Chevron are clear and simple: clean up your mess, clean up your act, stop aligning yourself with dictatorships and militaries, pay your fair share, and be transparent.

I was among several dozen activists who accompanied the proxy shareholders to the security gate, where they were sent off with good cheer and warm solidarity. Soon after the shareholders went in, six local activists from Unconventional Action if the Bay Area and Rising Tide locked down the main entrance lane by locking their arms in PVC tubes painted yellow with the words “Chevron kills.”

Photo by author

They were soon joined by myself and dozens of others lined up behind them, claiming a space for speakers to explain why we were there. Chevron security forces and San Ramon police did not attempt to remove us. Perhaps they decided not to take action in order not to draw more negative media attention than Chevron is already getting.

The coalition of organizers also produced a clever subvertisement campaign called “Chevwrong” that mirrored and mocked Chevron’s latest “Human Energy” ad campaign. Images of representatives of communities around the world are shown with a quote, such as “I will try not to breathe polluted air” along with a factoid highlighting a particular abuse in a specific region.

The week prior to the meeting, the San Francisco Bay Area saw the appearance of these images wheat-pasted on billboards and poles around town. CBS Outdoor had refused to sell ad space on its billboards. When contacted, the CBS spokesperson said that it was against policy to have attack ads that were negative in character.

Alongside this was a form of subvertisement theater organized in large part by long-time activist David Solnit, author of Army of None. The alternative campaign is meant to speak the truth about the real effects of Chevron’s actions behind the fancy rhetoric of Chevron’s greenwashing campaign. Instead, Chevron’s “Human Energy” becomes “Inhumane Energy” and the subvertisement images read, “I will expose greenwashing,” and “I will expose toxic pollution.” Activists held the ads up to frame their faces behind the subversive words and chanted in unison, “I will expose–green washing! Will you join me? Yes, I will!”

Photo by author

While the shareholder meeting was taking place, speakers from Amazon Watch, National Lawyers Guild, and individuals like Antonia Juhasz–lead organizer and editor of the Alternative Report–and Rebecca Solnit, author of the much-praised Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, highlighted the grievances against Chevron and the need to keep putting pressure on the big oil giants. One member of Iraq Veterans Against the War told about how he was reassigned from his communications/intelligence duties in Iraq to protect oil pipelines.

At about 10:30, the shareholders came out and shared what occurred in the meeting. It was reported that Chevron’s CEO David O’Reilly told them that the campaign’s Alternative Report, which he claimed he had seen, along with their grievances “are an insult to Chevron employees, and should be thrown in the trash.”

Speakers ranged from the Mayor of Richmond, Gayle McLaughlin, who reported that “Chevron’s response is emblematic of its approach to local communities—a systemic disregard and mockery of the communities in which it operates,” to Christine Cordero of Filipino/American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity, who said:

“While our communities suffer from Chevron’s toxic emissions, catastrophic spills, leakages, and explosions, David O’Reilly speaks of his hurt feelings. This is about the health of communities and, ultimately, the long term of health of O’Reilly’s corporation if he continues to choose to do nothing and ignore the costs of Chevron’s operations in the Philippines.”

Paul Donowitz of EarthRights International added that “Chevron chose to turn a deaf ear to the communities who bear the crippling consequences of its operations. Chevron’s complicity in human rights abuses in Burma, the billions in project revenues flowing to the brutal Burmese military junta who use these profits to oppress their own people are more evidence that this is a company that cares for only one thing – its bottom line.” A dozen or so people from the Burmese community, including a robed monk, were there to oppose Chevron’s actions in their country.

After the speakers finished their reports, the rally was concluded with the chant “We’ll be back! We’ll be back!”—echoing Ecuador representative Mr. Criollo’s promise that “we’ll keep fighting until the end.”

1. People of all ages…

2. People from all walks of life…

3. People from different tribes…

4. People from different countries…

5. brought together by the same sense of resolve…

6. brought together by the desire to take action.

7. They stood and they sat…

8. and they said, “We won’t be silent.”

Photos 1-5: David Gilbert, Amazon Watch

Photos 6-8: Thomas Cavanagh, Amazon Watch

Community Connection:

To read about the outcome of the Shareholder Meeting, click here. And to get the back story on Chevron, be sure to review Matador’s coverage, which you can access by clicking on “Related Posts” below.

Emergildo Criollo

Avujathse gi ke’ima chiga’bian puiyi’ccu EE.UU suma.

Ja’nu gi va San Francisco kanjen tui gi cundaseya mingae amazonia’su a’indeccu Chevron tson’jen’chune.

I send a cordial greeting to the citizens of the United States in my native language.

My name is Emergildo Criollo, and I am a representative of Cofan village. Today, I am in San Francisco [California] to participate in the annual meeting of Chevron, where I will let the public know the truth about what has happened in my territory since Texaco initiated its operations in the Ecuadorean Amazon, as well as the history-making lawsuit that we are leading in pursuit of justice after 15 years.

The village of Cofan is located along the banks of the Aguarico River. When I was a boy, we drank clean water and hunted animals in the forest. We fished in the river, which was uncontaminated. Before, we lived free of pollution. We had enough food for our families, and enough natural medicine from the forest. With these medicines, we cured illnesses as we’d always done, according to our traditions. But with the arrival of Texaco in 1964, we could no longer use these medicines because new illnesses began to appear as a result of contamination.

It was in 1969 when I saw an oil spill for the first time, which soon flowed into the Aguarico River. Seeing this, we–the members of the Cofan–could no longer live there because there was no place to source clean water. So we moved further into the forest, establishing what is known today as the community of Cofan Dureno.

But the company pushed farther and farther into the forest, drilling more oil wells. We even had a well, Dureno 1, which was inside our own community. That well affected our people tremendously. There were spills and massive water accumulations. The flames of refinery towers were visible day and night. Animals abandoned the forest and fish disappeared from the river.

My two sons died drinking contaminated water. My aunt died of mouth cancer. She also drank contaminated water.

The company is to blame for all of the contamination. They must take responsibility for their actions and begin to clean up the contamination that still exists.

The five nationalities–Siona, Secoya, Kichwa, Huaorani, y Cofán– have organized.

Even now, the people from each of these groups continue dying from cancer. It’s for this reason that I write this letter- so you know how Texaco (now Chevron) affects people with its petroleum operations.

The company entered the Amazon without anyone’s permission, destroying the forest and leaving contamination and unknown illnesses in their wake. Today, the company is hiding the truth, saying that oil spills haven’t caused contamination and that they’re not cancer-causing agents. But I know that’s not true because this illness was never in our community before. And I know that my two sons and my aunt would still be alive today.

Chevron must take responsibility for cleaning up the open pools and sediments in the ground water supply so that my children can drink clean water and breathe clean air. Chevron took natural resources from the Ecuadorean rain forest, but those of us who live here have only received contamination, sickness, and death.

Everything the company says is totally false. I know because I’ve seen and experienced the effects of their actions first-hand. Texaco, now Chevron, wants to maintain a clean image. But for me, the image of this company is stained with oil.

I invite all of you to visit the Amazon where Texaco operated. You can see for yourself. You can see firsthand the contamination. You can say so to Chevron and demand that they accept responsibility.

Today, I’ll be entering Chevron’s headquarters to attend the annual meeting of the company’s shareholders. I’m going to talk face-to-face with the company. I’m going to defend my village and demand justice.

I ask the citizens of the United States to join with the 30,000 residents of the Ecuadorean Amazon in solidarity.

We have been fighting for more than 15 years for the company to clean up the damage it’s done to the environment.

And we’ll keep fighting until the end.

Translated from the Spanish by Julie Schwietert Collazo. To read the original version of this letter in Spanish, click here.

Community Connection:

To learn more about what’s going on with big oil this week, check out this article. And to learn how Chevron’s putting responsibility on consumers (and not the company), read about the company’s most recent greenwashing ad campaign. Finally–and most importantly–to learn how YOU can take action, please visit ChevronToxico.

Photo: albany_tim

As I read the news coverage of the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, I couldn’t help but think about a short piece I came across the other day.

The title was What Should America Become? and came from the blog, A Couple of Things. The author(s) gave these options for the future of the country:

A. A softie nation who invites terrorists to bomb us with immunity?

B. A softie nation on the outside but some thugs ready to beat you secretly (if possible).

C. An angry nation where citizens can be picked on by high taxes so others can get free things.

D. An angry nation where there is no minimum wage and where you can dump dioxin in the river or street.

E. A scared nation who kowtows to any complaints.

F. A bully nation who invades any country it doesn’t like and is willing to have hundreds of thousands of troops dead in order to take over a country.

G. A lawsuit nation where anybody can sue and lawyers can shape the country.

Really, are these our only choices?

Time For Change

Photo: B Rosen

We are at a time in history where many countries throughout the world are having to decide a different course when it comes to their politics, human rights, and environmental choices.

The United States has employed obvious contradictions that are apparent in recent political decisions, such as Prop 8.

Yet I wonder, what is with the black and white mentality? Of course there are no simple answers to dealing with terrorism, economic collapse, healthcare, or turning back time on a polluted Earth.

But what about contemplating how some of our actions have, and continue to, instigate terrorist activities? And what if our taxes went to things like free higher education and healthcare so that a good chunk of the nation wouldn’t be saddled with loan debt?

Or how about a real move internationally toward sustainable forms of energy so the government can’t come out with a bogus reason to go to war?

Buddhist Philosophy At Work

On her blog, Jennifer Jones posted a quote attributed to Buddha that I think fits these dilemmas nicely:

The thought manifests as the word. The word manifests as the deed. The deed develops into habit. And the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care. And let it spring from love, born out of concern for all beings.

What if we moved from a place of concern for ALL human beings, not just the ones in our family, community, or country? That might actually lead to a completely different train of thought as compared to soft vs. hard, angry vs. scared, bully vs. victim. It might lead to a simple respect for all beings.

And I sit with the thought that this respect might reach across the boundaries of faith and belief, and allow that everyone should be able to love – and marry – who they want.

Image courtesy of True Cost of Chevron

Big oil realizes it’s in big trouble.

The world’s big oil companies are in a tough position: they source and sell one of the most in-demand products in a world where consumers are increasingly sensitive to the environmental and human rights impacts of oil production and consumption.

Yet the Chevrons and Shells of the world are responding to market demand and making enormous profits, so there’s little incentive to stop oil drilling.

The oil companies and the consumer public share the responsibility for the consequences of oil dependence on human and physical environments, but big oil is directly on the hot seat. In order to draw attention away from the catastrophes caused by its activities, big oil has been rolling out new advertising and marketing strategies in an effort to change the public’s perception of oil companies AND to put the onus of environmental responsibility on consumers.

Chevron’s recent ad campaign, which revolves around the question, “Will you join us?”, features diverse people in television and print ads making firm, declarative commitments to reducing their own oil dependence:

“I will leave the car at home more.”

“I will finally get a programmable thermostat.”

“I will replace 3 light bulbs with CFLs.”

And so on.

But critics charge that Chevron’s empowering, “I can do it” campaign is little more than the company’s most recent–and boldest–attempt to greenwash its own activities.

In recent weeks, 11 organizations came together to launch the website, True Cost of Chevron. In addition to producing the “Alternative Annual Report,” the activist groups designed their own ad campaign.

Modeled after Chevron’s “Will you join us?” campaign, the True Cost of Chevron ads also feature individuals from around the world, making aspirational statements of an entirely different sort:

Burma:

Chevron has refused to acknowledge both the widespread human rights abuses caused by its Yadana project and the destructive effects that revenue from the project has had in Burma.

Canada:

In Canada, the toxic burden on communities near the tar sands is already enormous. In addition to direct human exposure, oil contamination in the local watershed has led to arsenic in moose meat – a dietary staple for First Nations peoples – up to 33 times acceptable levels. Drinking water has also been contaminated.

Ecuador:

While drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon from 1964 to 1990, Texaco – which merged with Chevron in 2001 – deliberately dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater, spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil, and left hazardous waste in hundreds of open pits dug out of the forest floor.

Nigeria:

Chevron continues to employ and pay the notoriously brutal Nigerian military to provide it with security services.

Iraq:

In 2007, Chevron paid $30 million to settle charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it had paid illegal kickbacks to the Hussein regime to win its Iraqi marketing contracts, after it was revealed that Hussein had established a worldwide network of oil companies and countries that secretly helped Iraq generate about $11 billion in illegal income from oil sales.

Kazakhstan:

The surrounding populations began to suffer greatly from an unprecedented variety of illnesses upon development of the [oil] fields, including respiratory illnesses, blood illnesses, cardiovascular illnesses, and high levels of stillborn babies, all of which medical specialists have determined to be directly related to the oil industry.

Amazon Watch, one of the organizations in the coalition behind True Cost of Chevron, tried to sell the ads to CBS, which rejected the offer. Within 24 hours, visitors to the True Cost of Chevron site had downloaded the ads and pasted them around San Francisco.

Community Connection:

Want to make sure your money is supporting truly green companies? Check out “10 Brands That Don’t Deserve to Declare Themselves Green” and “10 Tested and True Green Companies.”

All True Cost of Chevron ads courtesy of True Cost of Chevron.

Image courtesy of truecostofchevron.com

It won’t be a fun week for oil company bigwigs.

As Matador reported previously, Wiwa v. Shell–a case almost 15 years in the making–will open this week in a New York City courtroom. The case brings Royal Dutch Shell to court and holds the oil company accountable for the deaths of Ken Saro-Wiwa and fellow activists in 1995, as well as other environmental and human rights violations.

Jury selection begins on Wednesday, May 27, and opening statements are expected to be delivered the following day, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. If you’re in the New York City area and are interested in attending the trial, it will be open to the public. The Center for Constitutional Rights is also seeking NYC-area volunteers to provide logistical support to Nigerian plaintiffs; more information about that can be found here.

If you’re not in New York City, but wish to support the case against Shell, the Center for Constitutional Rights offers opportunities to host screenings of the documentary “Delta Force” or to help publicize the case via the Internet. Read more about those opportunities here.

Over on the West Coast, another oil company will be on the hot seat.

Chevron’s annual shareholders’ meeting is also scheduled for Wednesday, May 27, and will be held at Chevron’s headquarters in San Ramon, California.

The meeting promises to be dramatic: the company is currently embroiled in its own lawsuit, which was filed in New York in 1993 and was later moved to Ecuador at Chevron’s request. The class action suit is believed to be the largest environmental case in history, representing 30,000 plaintiffs in Ecuador, who charge Chevron of gross environmental and human rights abuses.

Shareholders may be happy with the company’s profits, but many have expressed concern about Chevron’s handling of the court case. New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently opened a probe of Chevron to determine if it is misleading shareholders, so passions are likely to be high at Wednesday’s meeting.

Environmental and human rights advocates are expected to stage a protest outside Chevron’s headquarters the day of the meeting, and members of indigenous and farming communities from Ecuador’s Amazon will be present to address Chevron’s management directly.

You can read background on the case and follow what unfolds this week here. And if you’d like to send Chevron your own message, visit this site.

Community Connection:

Keep coming back this week to learn more about the developments in both cases, and to read first-hand accounts of people affected directly by Chevron’s actions in Ecuador’s Amazon.

Photo: Kyle May

But don’t pity Richard Gryzch.

Gryzch has finally finished building his solar-powered motorcycle, the ultimate DIY project that took two years and some creative financing, including selling his other motorcycles and his house.

Gryzch, who lives in the sun-soaked city of Phoenix, Arizona, claims the bike can get up to 90 miles an hour and can ride 50 miles on a single charge. He’s not done tinkering, though. Gryzch intends to keep tweaking his design so the bike can get 300 miles out of a single charge.

Community Connection:

What’s the most ambitious solar powered project you’ve heard about? Let us know by leaving a comment! And to see some other solar-powered gadgets that started out as DIY projects, check out this article from our archives.

Photo: oxfam international

If you don’t know Majora Carter, you will soon.

Carter, founder of the New York City-based Sustainable South Bronx, is a leader in the urban environmentalism movement. She’s a MacArthur Fellow and frequently appears on who’s who and “most influential” lists, widely admired for her ability to engage disparate interest groups to work together on a single cause.

Carter’s work, first as the founder and director of Sustainable South Bronx, and more recently as the president of the Majora Carter Group (a consulting outfit), as a policy advocate, and as a TV and radio show host, has raised urban awareness about environmental issues.

But her accomplishments notwithstanding, Carter’s vision of environmentalism may end up dividing more people than it unites.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Carter was asked “How do you make green matter in the ghetto?”. She replied:

“If you’re speaking to someone whose first priority is survival, no one is going to give a crap about the polar bears—nor should they.”

The question was intended to invite conversation about environmentalism as an elitist movement, which has been confined, as the interviewer put it, “to the latte-sipping set.” True, as is the case with so many “movements.”

But the framing of the question and the response it elicited from Carter are troublesome because they imply that environmentalism forces a choice between polar bears and people, between latte-sippers and instant-coffee-from-corner-bodega drinkers.

I agree with Carter’s claim that the environmental movement has, to its detriment, overlooked urban communities and poor people. And I agree that the environmental movement needs to make its arguments and calls to action less theoretical and more tangible, relevant to people’s own daily lives.

But choosing between polar bears and people? It’s a false opposition, Majora. A true environmental movement can–and should–work on saving both.

Community Connection:

It’s true that cities could form the core of a dynamic environmental movement. Check out Six Reasons Why Cities Can Be Sustainable Places and join the conversation.

Photo: Dominic DeGrazier

Run-down. A cold atmosphere. Dirty. Desperate.

Apart from being a bit preoccupied with the swine flu, these were my images of a Mexican orphanage before visiting the Door of Faith Orphanage (DOFO) in Baja California, Mexico. Arriving with a group organized by the all volunteer-run network, Be the Cause, we were 10 individuals ready to help a needy establishment full of less-fortunate children.

But the weekend would be giving us a surprise.

Our first insight to this orphanage’s character began immediately after entering its gates. In between brightly colored modern buildings resides a brilliantly built basketball court surrounded by swings, slides and more playground fun. Run-down? My previously-held thoughts had quickly begun to be challenged.

Kristy, an American volunteer living at the orphanage, guided our group through the buildings and layout of the site. We learned that the orphanage currently houses 105 children ranging from ages of four months to 23 years old. Each dormitory sleeps no more than 15 children, and has a mother and/or father figure living within each building (whom the kids call “Mom” and “Dad”). The rooms and common areas feel like a kid-hotel with their bright walls, drawings, and comfortable-looking beds and couches. My “cold atmosphere” vision happily expired.

Another of the colorful buildings we passed had 30 or so articles of clothing hung up outside. “That is our laundry facility. We have just recently hired a lady to wash the kids’ clothes– about 80 loads a day.” After walking through a litter-free playground area, a few spotless mini-kid hotels, and now learning that a person was employed on site to do nothing more than wash clothes, the dirty thought had become entirely extinct.

At this point, I was confused. Here was a barber shop, a medical facility, an aerobics class, a full dining hall and kitchen, a new nursery being built, and more. “What have we come to help here?” went my selfish, silent thoughts. Kristy then explained that in Mexico, it’s costly and takes a tremendous amount of time to adopt children, especially if they are with siblings. Most of the kids remain at DOFO until they’re 18 years old.

This orphanage is not a conduit for foster parents-to-be to meet their future children. This is a home, a family.

Administrator DJ Schuetze described DOFO’s purpose:

1. Family: With the small dorms housing children and parent figures, the aim of DOFO is to provide a family environment, to raise these children knowing that they are loved and provided for.

2. Education: DOFO believes it’s important for children to attend school outside of the orphanage. This way, the children can learn from another social setting and gain invaluable educational knowledge to hopefully guide them for further studies.

3. Service: Once a month a charity service is performed, with the children reaching out to others who are in need.

Beyond learning about the solid structure of DOFO and its purpose, the children who live here are extremely welcoming and made the trip worth the time.

“Do you have any gum?” I was asked by five year old Juan. Despite my, “No, sorry,” he promptly grabbed my hand and lead me to the swings to enjoy a few minutes of horsing around. The kids value contact with people who come to them to spend a day, or longer, together. A few of the volunteers confirmed the children have memorable connections with visitors who they remember for years. The word “desperate” had faded now as well.

Photo: Dominic DeGrazier

DOFO requires a healthy amount of funding to operate for its 105 little citizens and their community. 70% of DOFO’s funding actually comes from individuals sending in small donations.

If you’re in Baja California and would be interested in donating time or money to DOFO, contact the organization through its website.

And no one in the group experienced any flu-like symptoms, in case you were wondering.