I found this collection of micro-animations from films to be strangely compelling. I clicked through the all the pages. There's a bit of repetition (I could have done without so many "woman blinking" bits) but overall whoever put this together captured a bunch of neat cinematic moments that probably get lost in the flow of the whole movie.
Perhaps if the Democrats had communicated this before the election, things would be a bit different.
I like the cut of Nicholas Kristof’s jib. When he’s not covering the power of microfinance in improving the lives of the poor, or writing books about the tragically wasted potential we could recapture by empowering women, he offers sensible economic solutions to domestic issues. In his latest opinion piece, End the War on Pot, he recommends that California voters legalize marijuana in the state as a step towards legalizing it nationwide.
Mr. Kristof eloquently makes his argument, so I will refrain from adding too much commentary here. The one point that I would like to underscore is the estimation by a Harvard economist that legalization and taxation of pot would, in effect, add more than $17 billion to our nation’s coffers. And, need I add, make the country that much more, ahem, “groovy”?
In this video, Melinda Gates gives a very interesting talk at TEDxChange about following the model of Coca-Cola for social benefit programs. The ubiquitous, uniform nature of Coke is really part of their brand and they are serious about maintaining it. As a business focused on the bottom line and responsible to shareholders, they spend a lot of time learning how to increase sales and implementing new strategies.
[ted id=977]
Gates makes the point that Coke has a well-developed information feedback system. This helps them nimbly react to emerging situations in a targeted fashion. Yet, how many nonprofits or NGOs roll out their programs without any sort of continual review? Every step of a project can be a learning opportunity, but many intervention programs are simply set up and left to run their course. Evaluation only comes at the end.
She also points out that Coke taps into entrepreneurial talent in the areas they want to reach. This is something that nonprofits are only recently taking advantage of, but it has so much potential for creating sustainable program delivery systems. Nonprofits like Living Goods, Reach India and other microfranchisers are leading the way in creating self-sustaining, organically-spreading programs that improve people’s lives.
The last component of Coke’s success that Mrs. Gates talks about is marketing. Obviously, Coke is very good at this. This is such a critical aspect of a successful organization, it is a shame that many nonprofits don’t pay it due attention. It could be argued that all the actions that an organization takes are part of its brand; that marketing is everything. Nonprofits tend to think that marketing stops at fundraising. This belief overlooks the fact that the end recipients of their programs are also their clients – whether they are paying for those programs or not.
Nonprofit, NGO, for-profit business; call them what you will, they are all organizations that are looking to maximize the number of people they affect. Nonprofits need to be more aggressive and strategic in how they pursue the goal of widespread impact, or market penetration. As a corollary to this, philanthropies should demand more of the organizations that they fund. Foundations should vote with their dollars the way consumers do, which will lead the groups they fund to be increasingly more efficient.
This year’s Blog Action Day is focused on water. (see petition)While there are several issues surrounding water, from illnesses that dirty water causes in the developing world to pollution from oil spills, what thing that personally frustrates me is seeing plastic litter in water. It’s persistent, noticeable, bothersome to people and harmful to ecosystems. It is even more frustrating to think of the energy wasted on making these plastic products, which are petroleum-based, of course, before they end up as physical pollutants.
Save the Bay, a pioneering environmental protection organization, has been releasing a yearly look at the worst locations for trash pollution around the San Francisco Bay. Their 2010 Bay Trash Hot Spots, lists 225 polluted shoreline areas and creeks around the Bay that are clogged with plastic debris.
Plastic is not biodegradable, but it physically degrades from UV exposure. So, in the ocean, a lot of plastic pollutants are tiny little bits that are hard to see, but perfect for animals to eat. I first heard about this watching one of the videos from the Plastiki voyage which studied the Pacific Gyre. You can check out this very cool infographic from the Plastiki folks that shows a bit more about plastic distribution in the ocean.
A lot of municipalities have experimented with banning the use of plastic bags, and there’s a growing movement towards that in the Bay Area. I don’t think the efficacy of such measures has really been studied. I feel like it could be a false feeling of having made an effort. What is the greatest source of plastic out there; plastic shopping bags or industrial nurdle spills?
Regardless of its validity in pollution prevention, reducing the use of plastic bags is certainly a step in the right direction. The statistics are shocking. From Save the Bay: “Amazingly, Californians use approximately 19 billion plastic bags every year. But here is the kicker: the average use time of a plastic bag is only 12 minutes!” And the baggers at my local supermarket wonder why I don’t want a single loaf of bread in two plastic bags!
