Saturday, October 20, 2007
Don't forget to pee
I'm now back from Toronto. I have so many friends and interesting people I know in Toronto that any trip out there starts early in the morning and ends early in the morning the next day for every day I'm out there.
One of my favorite meetings was with my friend Salimah, an activist and journalist. Thanks only to Facebook status updates, Salimah messaged me to let me know that she was headed to Toronto for a few days and our schedules would overlap.
We got together at the Park Hyatt's rooftop bar on Thursday afternoon and started to catch-up. Our conversation traveled the world from Afghanistan, Iraq, India, New York and Vancouver. Salimah and I are cut from the same cloth. We're passionate extroverts who never miss an opportunity to evangelize our beliefs and passions. The conversation ran a million miles a minute and we both lost track of time. We realized we were both late for our next meetings and shared a cab back downtown.
As we continued to gab and snake through rush-hour traffic, we both realized we had to pee. Of course, the verbal acknowledgment only put more pressure on our respective bladders... The snails pace of our cab became more worrisome. At that pace, there was no way either of us would, well, make it. So we ran out of the cab in frantic search of a public washroom - which despite the fact we were smack dab in the financial district - seemed a fruitless search.
We left each other promising one another that next time, we would remember to pee.
The moral of the story? When running around the world pursuing your passion, we run ourselves ragged. It's impossible to take care of the world's work when we forget our own basic needs. So don't forget to pee.
Off to see Rendition.
One of my favorite meetings was with my friend Salimah, an activist and journalist. Thanks only to Facebook status updates, Salimah messaged me to let me know that she was headed to Toronto for a few days and our schedules would overlap.
We got together at the Park Hyatt's rooftop bar on Thursday afternoon and started to catch-up. Our conversation traveled the world from Afghanistan, Iraq, India, New York and Vancouver. Salimah and I are cut from the same cloth. We're passionate extroverts who never miss an opportunity to evangelize our beliefs and passions. The conversation ran a million miles a minute and we both lost track of time. We realized we were both late for our next meetings and shared a cab back downtown.
As we continued to gab and snake through rush-hour traffic, we both realized we had to pee. Of course, the verbal acknowledgment only put more pressure on our respective bladders... The snails pace of our cab became more worrisome. At that pace, there was no way either of us would, well, make it. So we ran out of the cab in frantic search of a public washroom - which despite the fact we were smack dab in the financial district - seemed a fruitless search.
We left each other promising one another that next time, we would remember to pee.
The moral of the story? When running around the world pursuing your passion, we run ourselves ragged. It's impossible to take care of the world's work when we forget our own basic needs. So don't forget to pee.
Off to see Rendition.
Labels: activism, care, personal, toronto
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Changing the world - one milk carton at a time
So about a week or so ago Jessie comes home from having drinks with a friend and informed me that we're never shopping at the convenience store below our apartment ever again.
These kind of pronouncements more often come from my mouth, so I was curious as to know what kind of injustice she had witnessed that would take the convenience out of the convenience store.
Apparently, Jessie asked the owner why they don't carry organic milk, he got defensive and said something like "if you don't like it, shop somewhere else" and so she promised never to shop there again. His argument was that "no one wants organic milk." Inspired (I suspect) from the liquid courage she had just imbibed, she brought other customers into her conversation, and proceeded to ask three people standing in line whether they would buy organic milk, if they stocked it. Either out of genuine interest or social anxiety, they all said that they would buy the organic milk if it was available.
She left promising never to return until they carried organic milk. Of all the stances to take, I'm not sure why Jess seized on this (again, perhaps it was the drinks) but a couple of days later, as we walked by our convenience store, one of the owners came running after Jessie and said "ok, we have organic milk now. shop with us again!"
So now of course, we're drinking a lot of milk in the household.
This story is a bit cheesy (cheesy, get it?) but it does contain two fundamental truths about changing the world:
1) Start small. Real small.
2) When they do what you want, buy a whole lot of milk. (i.e. reward the changed behavior by increased loyalty).
These kind of pronouncements more often come from my mouth, so I was curious as to know what kind of injustice she had witnessed that would take the convenience out of the convenience store.
Apparently, Jessie asked the owner why they don't carry organic milk, he got defensive and said something like "if you don't like it, shop somewhere else" and so she promised never to shop there again. His argument was that "no one wants organic milk." Inspired (I suspect) from the liquid courage she had just imbibed, she brought other customers into her conversation, and proceeded to ask three people standing in line whether they would buy organic milk, if they stocked it. Either out of genuine interest or social anxiety, they all said that they would buy the organic milk if it was available.
She left promising never to return until they carried organic milk. Of all the stances to take, I'm not sure why Jess seized on this (again, perhaps it was the drinks) but a couple of days later, as we walked by our convenience store, one of the owners came running after Jessie and said "ok, we have organic milk now. shop with us again!"
So now of course, we're drinking a lot of milk in the household.
This story is a bit cheesy (cheesy, get it?) but it does contain two fundamental truths about changing the world:
1) Start small. Real small.
2) When they do what you want, buy a whole lot of milk. (i.e. reward the changed behavior by increased loyalty).
Labels: activism, environment, worldchanging
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
New Podcast Up!
A new Podcast episode is up and available for download from iTunes! If you download it, here a few listener's notes that go along with this episode.
A few details to follow-up on from this episode:
[1:08] Here is the survey results I mentioned from Valleywag. I misspoke: Kiva was #4 out of 20.
[5:23] The guys I refer to can be found at GiveMeaning by clicking here
[7:17] The blog I refer to can be found here
[8:23] I was thinking about Ghana.
[11:30] Of course, the argument here about the "industry of aid" is that this is still economic stimulus for the local community. The point I didn't make clear was that this person's cynicism was the Westerners profit-participation in the aid-industry.
[16:12] I'm an idiot. I said "A Country like Africa." Africa is a continent not a country.
[16:58] Firm evidence I love to opine even when I know little about the subject at hand.
[17:07] Check out WorldOfGood here. Fair disclosure: They have advertised previously at GiveMeaning.
[24:29] Here is a link to the article submitted at GiveMeaning.
[32:33] I'm not talking about just "other atrocities" but any issue that needs the attention of the entire GiveMeaning community.
A few details to follow-up on from this episode:
[1:08] Here is the survey results I mentioned from Valleywag. I misspoke: Kiva was #4 out of 20.
[5:23] The guys I refer to can be found at GiveMeaning by clicking here
[7:17] The blog I refer to can be found here
[8:23] I was thinking about Ghana.
[11:30] Of course, the argument here about the "industry of aid" is that this is still economic stimulus for the local community. The point I didn't make clear was that this person's cynicism was the Westerners profit-participation in the aid-industry.
[16:12] I'm an idiot. I said "A Country like Africa." Africa is a continent not a country.
[16:58] Firm evidence I love to opine even when I know little about the subject at hand.
[17:07] Check out WorldOfGood here. Fair disclosure: They have advertised previously at GiveMeaning.
[24:29] Here is a link to the article submitted at GiveMeaning.
[32:33] I'm not talking about just "other atrocities" but any issue that needs the attention of the entire GiveMeaning community.
Labels: activism, charity, darfur, givemeaning, kiva, microfinance, microlending, philanthropy, podcast, sudan
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Khartoum Booms while Sudan Burns
This article was posted a few minutes ago at the GiveMeaning site.
It gives us the real deal on how to end the Genocide in Sudan: Restrict its oil exports, and bring the Sudanese government to its knees.
Is it any wonder that President al-Bashir continues to smugly defy diplomatic efforts and UN resolutions? As long as China pumps Sudan's oil, nothing significant can occur to stop the Genocide.
As a young boy, I stood outside Shell Oil stations with my mother with signs that read "Product of Apartheid." The economic pressure that came as a result of this kind of boycott was a significant contributor to the end of Apartheid.
Why not boycott China's products until they come around? I see all of these activist efforts to lobby our Governments but it's not our Governments who need convincing.
What say you?
It gives us the real deal on how to end the Genocide in Sudan: Restrict its oil exports, and bring the Sudanese government to its knees.
Is it any wonder that President al-Bashir continues to smugly defy diplomatic efforts and UN resolutions? As long as China pumps Sudan's oil, nothing significant can occur to stop the Genocide.
As a young boy, I stood outside Shell Oil stations with my mother with signs that read "Product of Apartheid." The economic pressure that came as a result of this kind of boycott was a significant contributor to the end of Apartheid.
Why not boycott China's products until they come around? I see all of these activist efforts to lobby our Governments but it's not our Governments who need convincing.
What say you?
Labels: activism, politics, sudan
Friday, April 13, 2007
These guys are my heroes!
I have never been so excited about a group of people or an idea (other than GiveMeaning) as I am about the guys at DirectCurrentMedia
They are producing a series called 4Real that uses celebrities to bring exposure to some of the most amazing human beings on earth! I've blogged about my cynicism about pairing celebrities with cause.. What makes these guys different is that the celebrity is nothing more than the eyeballs. This is not about showing their halos, its about them just being participants in the experience.
The people that are featured on 4Real are community leaders who have made and continue to make massive progress on behalf of their communities despite conditions and environment conspiring against them.
I had a meeting scheduled with them yesterday afternoon and then brought them out for drinks late last night.
These guys are just getting going but I predict will be a major force.
They are producing a series called 4Real that uses celebrities to bring exposure to some of the most amazing human beings on earth! I've blogged about my cynicism about pairing celebrities with cause.. What makes these guys different is that the celebrity is nothing more than the eyeballs. This is not about showing their halos, its about them just being participants in the experience.
The people that are featured on 4Real are community leaders who have made and continue to make massive progress on behalf of their communities despite conditions and environment conspiring against them.
I had a meeting scheduled with them yesterday afternoon and then brought them out for drinks late last night.
These guys are just getting going but I predict will be a major force.
Labels: activism, causemarketing, directcurrentmedia, media, tv, world
Monday, January 22, 2007
Net Neutrality in Canada - Who Cares?
The Tyee just posted an article entitled "Canada Sleeps Through War to 'Save the Internet."
The Tyee defines the issue of Net Neutrality as "Whether telecom companies can favor some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others."
While the issue has made its way to the top of hot button issues in the US, even being hilariously profiled on the Jon Stewart show by the "PC Guy" (see below)
Anyone that expresses shock or outrage that the telco's dare to propose making more
money off the services they provide should give their head a shake. It's this mis-perception that the internet is free or a public utility that gives rise to the argument against Net Neutrality. The internet is NOT free. It's access is owned by an elite group of multi-billion companies whose business it is to make as much possible money of their assets and services. Whether in an Internet cafe in Kitgum, Uganda or at home in South Granville, I have always paid a provider for my internet (except when I find open wireless networks, but then still, someone is paying for that network access).
That these companies have gained these assets in part because of years of government granted monopoly is not sufficient argument against keeping them from charging for tiered access.
The companies that provide this access to both servers and browsers of content have made multi-billion investments in being able to efficiently deliver an exponentially increasingly amount of high-bandwidth content to the masses, expecting the highest return on their investment possible that that their customers are willing to pay for.
Is it a sad day that this new medium has matured into a platform that is now drawing big numbers of people away from their television sets, magazines and newspapers and as such is starting to act more like traditional media industries or is the portioning of the internet really nothing more than the logical evolution of a medium that has finally begun to truly mature? It's probably both.
The argument that valuable progressive media broadcasting will not be able to afford a two-tiered model, I reject. Supporters of those organizations will donate in membership drives (GiveMeaning has already funded some of those drives).
Yes, the fact that this might mean higher start-up costs for new organizations and that it would impose a "success fee" as organizations serve-up more content but the great majority of these content providers will find a way to cover those costs.
For the organizations that can't support themselves independently, they will form media co-ops that will pool resources, and a crop of new intermediaries will emerge to offer pooled resources for similarly oriented content providers.
So amongst all of the issues that need our Country's attention, I don't think Net Neutrality should factor to the top 5.
But you see that I have posted a blog badge to Neutrality.ca because I do believe that all of us but especially those of us in the IT business need to be more aware of the policies and issues governing our infrastructure providers and as consumers of internet services, we need better insight into what the major providers are doing especially in regards to free speech and fair competition.
That's why I post the blog badge and why I dugg the Tyee article. We need to be aware of the changing landscape as the medium we rely on matures as an industry. We need both extremes of the debate advocated passionately and keep informed about the policies that shape the industry.
Lastly, I'm waiting to see what IT company figures it out first and makes this issue a core aspect of their corporate social responsibility platform.
The Tyee defines the issue of Net Neutrality as "Whether telecom companies can favor some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others."
While the issue has made its way to the top of hot button issues in the US, even being hilariously profiled on the Jon Stewart show by the "PC Guy" (see below)
Anyone that expresses shock or outrage that the telco's dare to propose making more
money off the services they provide should give their head a shake. It's this mis-perception that the internet is free or a public utility that gives rise to the argument against Net Neutrality. The internet is NOT free. It's access is owned by an elite group of multi-billion companies whose business it is to make as much possible money of their assets and services. Whether in an Internet cafe in Kitgum, Uganda or at home in South Granville, I have always paid a provider for my internet (except when I find open wireless networks, but then still, someone is paying for that network access).
That these companies have gained these assets in part because of years of government granted monopoly is not sufficient argument against keeping them from charging for tiered access.
The companies that provide this access to both servers and browsers of content have made multi-billion investments in being able to efficiently deliver an exponentially increasingly amount of high-bandwidth content to the masses, expecting the highest return on their investment possible that that their customers are willing to pay for.
Is it a sad day that this new medium has matured into a platform that is now drawing big numbers of people away from their television sets, magazines and newspapers and as such is starting to act more like traditional media industries or is the portioning of the internet really nothing more than the logical evolution of a medium that has finally begun to truly mature? It's probably both.
The argument that valuable progressive media broadcasting will not be able to afford a two-tiered model, I reject. Supporters of those organizations will donate in membership drives (GiveMeaning has already funded some of those drives).
Yes, the fact that this might mean higher start-up costs for new organizations and that it would impose a "success fee" as organizations serve-up more content but the great majority of these content providers will find a way to cover those costs.
For the organizations that can't support themselves independently, they will form media co-ops that will pool resources, and a crop of new intermediaries will emerge to offer pooled resources for similarly oriented content providers.
So amongst all of the issues that need our Country's attention, I don't think Net Neutrality should factor to the top 5.
But you see that I have posted a blog badge to Neutrality.ca because I do believe that all of us but especially those of us in the IT business need to be more aware of the policies and issues governing our infrastructure providers and as consumers of internet services, we need better insight into what the major providers are doing especially in regards to free speech and fair competition.
That's why I post the blog badge and why I dugg the Tyee article. We need to be aware of the changing landscape as the medium we rely on matures as an industry. We need both extremes of the debate advocated passionately and keep informed about the policies that shape the industry.
Lastly, I'm waiting to see what IT company figures it out first and makes this issue a core aspect of their corporate social responsibility platform.
Labels: activism, business, canada, internet, IT, netneutrality, news, politics, savetheinternet, technology
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Who gives a damn about the environment?
en·vi·ron·ment /ɛnˈvaɪrənmənt, -ˈvaɪərn-/ Pronunciation[en-vahy-ruhn-muhnt, -vahy-ern-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu.
It might come as a shock to some of my close friends when I say that I really haven't given much thought to the environment. It's true. For the kid who used to write letters to McDonald's asking them "to stop using stirofoame [sic]in their cups because it hurts the environment," it's been years since I have cared or engaged myself on environmental issues.
Before yesterday, the last time I got concerned about the environment was when I found out that Polar Bears have been declining in numbers because of the rate that ice is melting, causing massive disruptions in the feeding, hibernation and reproduction of the species. I remember the week where the news story was circulating and I did some searching but I couldn't find any organization to donate to, so I gave up.
I'm the kind of guy that last summer, as we enjoyed an especially warm summer, I glibly thanked global warming for the longer summer when making obligatory weather chit-chat in the elevator of my apartment building.
I never saw Inconvenient Truth, and despite attempts to get motivated to see it, just couldn't and still can't bring myself to do it.
This all seems like horrible admissions for a person in my job, and for a person who is known amongst his friends and colleagues as an incredibly passionate guy, a guy who quite literally aspires for nothing more than to change the world.
I suppose (if you'll indulge the metaphor) the clouds began to part for me round about Tuesday night when without warming and whilst still relatively warm out, snow began falling but then, within two hours had almost completely disappeared.
The next morning, we picked up Mr Brown as we do every morning. (We run a car-pool but it's economical not consciously environmental) He starts talking about this article, how 10 blocks of Austin's downtown core had been closed because of birds mysteriously dropping dead from the sky. This, I remember, is how that movie The Core started and then we found out that the earth had stopped spinning, dooming us all until Hillary Swank and that guy from Thank You For Smoking saved the world.
Apparently, birds dropping dead isn't limited to Austin. It's been reported in Australia as well.
I remember being in Toronto just before Christmas (it was warmer in Toronto than in Vancouver) and reading a great article in the Globe & Mail. I wish I could quote it exactly but it went something like "December - 23: In Ottawa where snowblowers are being sold at fire-sale prices and with flowers starting to bloom on Parliament Hill, it comes as no surprise that Prime Minister Harper is starting to take Global Warming seriously."
Throughout the day yesterday, various members of the upstairs team started emailing each other links to various environmental calamities, oddities or outright disasters.
By the end of the day yesterday, as snow began coming down again, we talked of little else other than just how f*cked we might be as a result of environmental damage.
And to be clear, this wasn't just end of the day kibitzing. This was neither dispassionate nor disconnected. This was genuinely a collective moment of several of us finally connecting our hearts and minds to the importance of the environment on our life here on earth. I mean, I don't know how many times I've heard pithy little statements like "we have only one earth" and variations on the theme but hey, we really have one f*cking planet and there is increasingly convincing proof connecting cause (our collective behavior and choices) to devastating effect.
I might be revealing too much of myself by referencing yet another schlocky near-apocolyptic Hollywood movie but in The Day After Tomorrow, Dennis Quaid plays a climate scientist who tries to warn the Vice-President of the US about a potential storm that would essentially create a new Ice Age. The Veep dismisses it, the World freezes over, the President dies, he ascends to the Presidency, and then at the end of the movie, from America's new base in Mexico, he addresses what remains of the World by saying something like "well, we've got to start taking care of the environment."
While back in the real world, there haven't been any Dennis Quaid types warning of an Ice Age coming in the next months or years, I reference this only as a reminder to myself of what might happen if we continue to push this off.
I found the above graph pretty compelling from an intellectual perspective. I found this in a report on Natural Disasters prepared by the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group. According to their report:
Despite all of this, I'm not compelled to act because of the Polar Bears or because I fear suddenly being frozen to death on my way into work. I look at this in surprisingly (for me) pragmatic terms: $$$Money$$$.
The need to do whatever we can to reverse and address the damage that's already been done, and to collectively do all we can to prevent more damage is best expressed in economic terms:
As the figures above address, not only are we vulnerable to more "big shocks" that devastate entire communities, regions or countries but everything from rising health costs, decreased agricultural outputs, wasted government and private donor disaster relief donations in the billions, there's no area of the economy that isn't touched by the environment. It's why it's called the environment.
I wonder if anyone has studied the environmental attitudes of Katrina victims? Do they correlate the devastation they experienced in any way to their own and their country's attitudes and actions towards the environment? Has even a significant minority of the affected population changed their daily actions to be more environmentally conscious?
Maybe it's already too late to reverse course and it's now all just an eventuality. But I ain't no quitter. Shouldn't we all be saying "But I'm gonna die trying?" Seriously, what on this earth, must happen for us to seriously give a damn?
The phone just rang. It was a good friend of mine. I told him I was in the middle of writing a blog about the environment. His reply? "Don't you have anything better to talk about than the weather?"
And this is the challenge.
–noun
1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu.
It might come as a shock to some of my close friends when I say that I really haven't given much thought to the environment. It's true. For the kid who used to write letters to McDonald's asking them "to stop using stirofoame [sic]in their cups because it hurts the environment," it's been years since I have cared or engaged myself on environmental issues.
Before yesterday, the last time I got concerned about the environment was when I found out that Polar Bears have been declining in numbers because of the rate that ice is melting, causing massive disruptions in the feeding, hibernation and reproduction of the species. I remember the week where the news story was circulating and I did some searching but I couldn't find any organization to donate to, so I gave up.
I'm the kind of guy that last summer, as we enjoyed an especially warm summer, I glibly thanked global warming for the longer summer when making obligatory weather chit-chat in the elevator of my apartment building.
I never saw Inconvenient Truth, and despite attempts to get motivated to see it, just couldn't and still can't bring myself to do it.
This all seems like horrible admissions for a person in my job, and for a person who is known amongst his friends and colleagues as an incredibly passionate guy, a guy who quite literally aspires for nothing more than to change the world.
I suppose (if you'll indulge the metaphor) the clouds began to part for me round about Tuesday night when without warming and whilst still relatively warm out, snow began falling but then, within two hours had almost completely disappeared.
The next morning, we picked up Mr Brown as we do every morning. (We run a car-pool but it's economical not consciously environmental) He starts talking about this article, how 10 blocks of Austin's downtown core had been closed because of birds mysteriously dropping dead from the sky. This, I remember, is how that movie The Core started and then we found out that the earth had stopped spinning, dooming us all until Hillary Swank and that guy from Thank You For Smoking saved the world.
Apparently, birds dropping dead isn't limited to Austin. It's been reported in Australia as well.
I remember being in Toronto just before Christmas (it was warmer in Toronto than in Vancouver) and reading a great article in the Globe & Mail. I wish I could quote it exactly but it went something like "December - 23: In Ottawa where snowblowers are being sold at fire-sale prices and with flowers starting to bloom on Parliament Hill, it comes as no surprise that Prime Minister Harper is starting to take Global Warming seriously."
Throughout the day yesterday, various members of the upstairs team started emailing each other links to various environmental calamities, oddities or outright disasters.
By the end of the day yesterday, as snow began coming down again, we talked of little else other than just how f*cked we might be as a result of environmental damage.
And to be clear, this wasn't just end of the day kibitzing. This was neither dispassionate nor disconnected. This was genuinely a collective moment of several of us finally connecting our hearts and minds to the importance of the environment on our life here on earth. I mean, I don't know how many times I've heard pithy little statements like "we have only one earth" and variations on the theme but hey, we really have one f*cking planet and there is increasingly convincing proof connecting cause (our collective behavior and choices) to devastating effect.
I might be revealing too much of myself by referencing yet another schlocky near-apocolyptic Hollywood movie but in The Day After Tomorrow, Dennis Quaid plays a climate scientist who tries to warn the Vice-President of the US about a potential storm that would essentially create a new Ice Age. The Veep dismisses it, the World freezes over, the President dies, he ascends to the Presidency, and then at the end of the movie, from America's new base in Mexico, he addresses what remains of the World by saying something like "well, we've got to start taking care of the environment."
While back in the real world, there haven't been any Dennis Quaid types warning of an Ice Age coming in the next months or years, I reference this only as a reminder to myself of what might happen if we continue to push this off.
I found the above graph pretty compelling from an intellectual perspective. I found this in a report on Natural Disasters prepared by the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group. According to their report:
- The costs of disaster damage is now 15 times higher than they were in 1950s - According to the IMF, disaster damage caused $654 billion in material losses in 1990s.
- The number of disasters has grown: fewer than 100 in 1975 to more than 400 in 2005
- Approximately 2.6 billion people were affected by natural disasters over the past ten years, compared to 1.6 billion the previous decade
Despite all of this, I'm not compelled to act because of the Polar Bears or because I fear suddenly being frozen to death on my way into work. I look at this in surprisingly (for me) pragmatic terms: $$$Money$$$.
The need to do whatever we can to reverse and address the damage that's already been done, and to collectively do all we can to prevent more damage is best expressed in economic terms:
As the figures above address, not only are we vulnerable to more "big shocks" that devastate entire communities, regions or countries but everything from rising health costs, decreased agricultural outputs, wasted government and private donor disaster relief donations in the billions, there's no area of the economy that isn't touched by the environment. It's why it's called the environment.
I wonder if anyone has studied the environmental attitudes of Katrina victims? Do they correlate the devastation they experienced in any way to their own and their country's attitudes and actions towards the environment? Has even a significant minority of the affected population changed their daily actions to be more environmentally conscious?
Maybe it's already too late to reverse course and it's now all just an eventuality. But I ain't no quitter. Shouldn't we all be saying "But I'm gonna die trying?" Seriously, what on this earth, must happen for us to seriously give a damn?
The phone just rang. It was a good friend of mine. I told him I was in the middle of writing a blog about the environment. His reply? "Don't you have anything better to talk about than the weather?"
And this is the challenge.
Labels: activism, charity, climate, disaster, earth, environment, hurricanekatrina, katrina, politics, web, world
Saturday, December 02, 2006
World Aids Day - A day later
Trite as it might be, I'm trying to make a point writing about World Aids Day the day after the day alloted for our interest and attention to be focused on HIV/AIDS. The point doesn't relate only to World Aids Day but all cause-allocated days of the calendar. My point isn't as "Debbie Downer" as "what about the other 364 days?"
My point is to pay attention to the announcements that our governments make and then take stock of whether the commitments made in these announcements have materialized by this time next year.
As I have said in other blog posts I wrote while in Africa, I think that the best thing we can do in Western countries is put pressure on our own governments to advocate for greater gender equality in the world. The Honourable Aileen Carroll, Canada's Minister for International Cooperation made the point that gender inequality is fueling the spread of HIV/AIDS. Quoting her speech "This World AIDS Day, we are asked by every woman and girl in the world, 'Have you heard me today?' I am here to say that we have heard you, and we are acting."
The best and most effective way to act on the issue of gender equality is ensure that the United Nations implements the recommendation made by a high-level panel on UN Reform to create a a new, independent, international agency for women .
Creating and funding such an agency is what's needed to act on the issues around gender inequality. Every day that I learn more, I'm convinced that creating this agency might actually be the single most powerful and transformative act presently available to the World.
My fellow Canadians, we should make sure that our government acts in the most responsible and powerful way it can. To my friends around the world, ask your government's UN representative where they stand on implementing the UN's own recommedation that this agency be created. Let us all ask our governments to create a single world-wide agency responsible for ensuring the irradication of gender inequality.
My point is to pay attention to the announcements that our governments make and then take stock of whether the commitments made in these announcements have materialized by this time next year.
As I have said in other blog posts I wrote while in Africa, I think that the best thing we can do in Western countries is put pressure on our own governments to advocate for greater gender equality in the world. The Honourable Aileen Carroll, Canada's Minister for International Cooperation made the point that gender inequality is fueling the spread of HIV/AIDS. Quoting her speech "This World AIDS Day, we are asked by every woman and girl in the world, 'Have you heard me today?' I am here to say that we have heard you, and we are acting."
The best and most effective way to act on the issue of gender equality is ensure that the United Nations implements the recommendation made by a high-level panel on UN Reform to create a a new, independent, international agency for women .
Creating and funding such an agency is what's needed to act on the issues around gender inequality. Every day that I learn more, I'm convinced that creating this agency might actually be the single most powerful and transformative act presently available to the World.
My fellow Canadians, we should make sure that our government acts in the most responsible and powerful way it can. To my friends around the world, ask your government's UN representative where they stand on implementing the UN's own recommedation that this agency be created. Let us all ask our governments to create a single world-wide agency responsible for ensuring the irradication of gender inequality.
Labels: activism, africa, aids, hiv, politics, UN, unitednations
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]