Monthly Archives: June 2007

Jeffrey Sachs, My Dad, and the Millennium Villages

1 Reply

Jeffrey Sachs wrote this great oped in yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen. In his piece he talks about the Millennium Villages which I think are just about the coolest thing to happen in development aid in a long, long, time. As the website describes:

“The Millennium Villages seek to end extreme poverty by working with the poorest of the poor, village by village throughout Africa, in partnership with governments and other committed stakeholders, providing affordable and science-based solutions to help people lift themselves out of extreme poverty.”

In short, Millennium Villages are test labs. Rather then start big, projects start small, see what works and then scale up. It’s a simple concept, which is, in part, why it is so smart.

Sadly, I’m not sure I have any useful skills to help the Millennium Village project directly. So I got online and donated $100 and dedicated it to my dad for Father’s Day (which, until Chiara B. reminded me, is this Sunday). Why $100? Because, as Sachs pointed out with an Economist quote:

“With an annual budget amounting to $50 a head administered by a UN team consisting mainly of bright young Kenyans, the Sauri villagers have apparently seen their rate of malaria go down from 43 per cent to 11 per cent (due to the provision of bed nets), while school results have leapt (due partly to proper lunches). Maize production has soared five-fold (due mainly to fertilizers) and receipts for crop sales have steadied thanks to a cereal bank.”

I liked the notion of donating in a $50 increments – it means you can measure ‘lives impacted.’ So is my dad saving the world? No. But he’s made the lives of two villagers in Mbola, Tanzania a whole lot better. And that’s a start. More importantly, the work he’s supporting is making it possible to assess how to help still more people more effectively. I know the scientist and the business man in him will be pleased.

So… if you have a dad – and I’m pretty sure at one point we all did(!) – here’s one good choice for a father’s day gift…

You can get to the donation page by clicking here.

Air Canada and the failure of rewards

17 Replies

Yesterday I received my threshold bonus from Air Canada for flying too much.

What was it?  Two upgrade certificates to fly Business Class… if you pay for a Latitude Class ticket.

While I’ve always disliked this ‘perk’ Gayle D. recently explained to me in greater detail why this reward program is a total failure for customers.

To begin with, of her 15 or so friends (who are stuck with flying Air Canada regularly) she knows of only one that can fly Latitude class. (I don’t know anyone.)

As a result this threshold bonus is completely ineffective, both as a reward and as an incentive. It fails as a reward because I’ll never enjoy the ‘perk’ of flying business class since no organization I know of pays for Latitude class tickets. Conversely, it fails as an incentive for the same reasons. Because clients won’t pay for Latitude class, I can’t be incented to buy a Latitude class fare.

As a result, I’m willing to wager that at least 85% of Air Canada’s Latitude upgrade certificates go unused. This means that Air Canada chops down trees, send lots of mail and spends on advertising, all to flaunt a perk its customers will rarely, if ever, get to use. Frustrating? You’d better believe it.

God I hope Westjet creates a rewards program. Or that we finally adopt an open skies agreement.

For those wishing to commiserate over some more Air Canada mistreatment stories try Andrew Potter’s recanting of his experience. Of course, Beltzner’s Air Canada inspired Haikus still make me laugh. And not to be outdone, I’ve vented on the subject previously myself.

The Creative Econom(ii)

2 Replies

As many of you know I’ve recently become an owner of a Nintendo Wii – that fun games console you control, not by pressing buttons, but my using a motion controlled wand (e.g. when you play video game golf, you actually swing the wand like a golf club). Needless to say it’s hilarious and fun.

One interesting feature of the Wii is that it allows you to download channels that bring content to you via your console. One of these is the Everybody Votes channel. This channel offers up a constantly updated set of questions – such as “Graffiti is…: Urban Art or Defacing Property?” – on which you vote. What makes it particularly interesting is that you get to see the result broken down by gender, province, country, etc…

Obviously, the survey data gathered by the Everybody Votes channel is deeply skewed and not representative of the population as a whole. But I think this is also what makes it so interesting.

For example, recently, the program asked the question “Which is worse to have stolen from you: Things or Ideas?”

Interestingly 50.6% of participating Canadian Wii users selected “Ideas.” So just over half of Canadian Wii users believe it’s worse to have recognition for an idea stolen than it is a tangible, likely fungible, asset.

Young people valuing ideas over things? Video-gamers valuing ideas over things? Could be a sign of the creative economy – where one’s ability dream or mash up new ideas is what’s valued most. I’m willing to bet that most Wii users are young professionals acculturated to this new reality.

OpenCities and Seneca College

2 Replies

As many of you know I’m deeply interested in Open-Source systems and so was super thrilled when David Humphrey invited me over to Seneca College for a reception at the Centre for Development of Open Technology (CDOT). Who knew such a place existed. And in Toronto no less! There is something in the air around Toronto and open-source systems… why is that?

This is exactly one of the questions those of us planning OpenCities are hoping it answers… (as our more formal blurb hints at)

What is OpenCities Toronto 2007? Our goal is to gather 80 cool people to ask how do we collaboratively add more open to the urban landscape we share? What happens when people working on open source, public space, open content, mash up art, and open business work together? How do we make Toronto a magnet for people playing with the open meme?

Registration for OpenCities starts today. If you have any questions please feel free to ask in the comment box below, or, drop me an email. I’m doubly pumped since the whole event will be taking place at the Centre for Social Innovation – I can’t imagine a better space. (If you wondering – do I live in Toronto or Vancouver, I don’t blame you, I sometimes wonder myself).

Policy.ca?

Leave a reply

So who knew there was a website called policy.ca? This place has been laying low.

I’m looking forward to checking it out further and would love to hear thoughts or reactions.

At first blush it seemed promising with feeds from a number of reputable thinktanks and institutes. The only red flag were a handful of weird and paranoid pieces. My favourite was this piece courtesy of The Narco Bulletin News:

The Age of Atlantica: As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada

The End of Sovereignty and Democracy Tolls for Upstate New York, Northern New England, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, and, Soon, for Boston and NYC Too

For those of you who, like me, were unaware what Altantica is, it is a new geographic entity formed out of (what we presume will be the former) regions of the Northeast US and Eastern Canada by an alliance of big business owners who are openly plotting to Mexicanize the region’s economy.

Confused? So was I. But wait until you get to the part about truck-trains…

Sigh.

Netneutrality.ca back up

Leave a reply

Good news! Netneutrality.ca is back up and running after a long, legally imposed, hiatus.

What does net neutrality mean? In short net neutrality is the principle that consumers should control what content, services and applications they use on the Internet. That this use should not be mediated, manipulated or impeded by your internet service provider. Essentially, the cable and phone companies want to charge content providers (e.g. webpages) a premium for preferred access. Sites that pay the premium would load faster than those that don’t and/or would have access to more bandwidth.

Kevin McArthur – the previous owner of the site posted the following note on Facebook explaining why the site was down and why he has handed it over to Michael Geist.

“So most of you know that I had to shut down the neutrality.ca site 6 weeks ago due to a cryptic ‘increasing legal concerns’ reason. Well, I still can’t talk about why exactly I had to do this but there are a few things we can learn.

First, defamation law is fundamentally broken in Canada. Not only are you guilty until proven innocent, but you are expected to mount a 6 figure defense to any filed allegation if you expect to win. This technique is known as a SLAPP lawsuit, and no longer must the agressors actually file papers, as the threat is sufficient enough to make any activist ponder principle or bankruptcy.

I made my choice, [ I really like my MINI cooper ], but others have chosen to stand and fight. Dr. Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca] who holds the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, is one such person. He’s stood up for Canadians, and is now being sued by Wayne Crookes in an separate but strikingly similar case to which I was to be subject.

I decided that he was just the right person to stand up for Net Neutrality and that he had the best chance of keeping the site going. As a result, I gave him the Neutrality.ca site, which when shut down was receiving about 20,000 visitors a month.

I’m sure he’ll take the site where I never could, and hopefully we’ll all get Net Neutrality in Canada.

The fight is far from over though, and I need each and every one of you reading this post to tell at least 3 people about Net Neutrality. Blog it. Put banners on your site. Scream it from the rooftops. It doesn’t matter so long as people know about it.

Failure to act on this issue will mean that the Internet as we know it will simply cease to exist, and a commercial medium devoid of non-commercial interests will emerge. Just like Radio and TV before it.

So stand up, take notice, and sign the petition on http://www.neutrality.ca !

Replacing Junkets with Junkets?

Leave a reply

In yesterday’s post I berated the Globe and Mail for slamming MPs over increasing their international travel budgets. I thought it would end there. But then yesterday’s Globe and Mail published this editorial arguing that MPs should retire their junkets.

Now in the editorial the “junkets” the G&M refers to are international trips paid for by third parties. The Globe argues that “If a trip is important, the Commons has a budget allocations for such ventures… senators and MPS recently added another $1.2 -million a year to their $3-million annual federal allotment.”

Interesting. So to prevent undue influence peddling the government should cover the costs of relevant and important trips. That sounds like a sensible solution.

However, last Thursday, when the $1.2-million increase was announced to enable MPs to attend interparliamentary association meetings, the Globe described this solutions as a “secretly approved… extra $1.2-million a year for junkets and other perks that come with their global network of interparliamentary committees.”

Yesterday’s scandal is today’s editorial solution. I love the consistency.

Isn’t the Globe and Mail interested in the world?

Leave a reply

Why is the Globe and Mail schizophrenic on international affairs? After conducting polls and focus groups it determined that what its readers cared about most was international news. This was part of its redesign and explains why it redeployed some of my favourite columnists (Ibbitson) abroad.

So… international issues and foreign affairs matter to Globe readers. Great. Got it.

Which means the Globe must have been excited that MPs decided to expand their international travel budgets to more effectively collaborate, exchange ideas and promote understanding with their legislative counterparts from key partners around the world.

Yes, they were so excited that in a Thursday article covering the decision the opening sentence read: “Canada’s MPs and senators have secretly approved for themselves an extra $1.2-million a year for junkets and other perks that come with their global network of interparliamentary committees, federal officials have told The Globe and Mail.”

Junkets? Ah yes, so at a time everyone is worried that American legislators don’t know or care about Canada the Globe focuses on tainting one of the few opportunity at our disposal to educate these legislators and forge relationships with them. Does the Globe feel the same way about such potential connections with Chinese legislators as well?

Clearly the Globe and its shareholders believe that sending their own correspondents abroad is not a waste of money. Nor should they. As they themselves discovered Canadians are concerned about the world and foreign policy. Heaven forbid our elected representatives act on those interests.

Everything Bad is good for me

1 Reply

So after reading Steven Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good for You a few months ago I’ve been feeling less guilty about watching TV. Johnson, whose counterintuitive thesis argues that pop culture is making us smarter is a gem of a book – especially for those looking for some fun, but interesting, non-fiction summer reading. One example he uses in his chapter on Television is Lost, a show characterized by a complex network of relationships and an opaque narrative that dares viewers to try to guess the show’s premise by weaving together the nuggets of information it reveals to them. According to Johnson, the shows complexity makes it brain food.

Brain food or no, this is the first time I’ve found a television drama really engaging. Not bad for a medium getting its butt kicked by the internet… isn’t it great how competition creates better, and smarter, content.

Anyway, since we’re on the topic I can’t resist sharing some thoughts on the Lost Season Finale (spoilers included!)

  • I’m betting the boat Jack Shepard calls for a rescue via satellite phone is operated by the Dharma Initiative who’ve been busy scouring the ocean trying hard to locate island they lost contact with after Ben killed their team.
  • Colleen W. suggested that, after their rescue, the castaways start to die. This is why Ben yells at Jack to not “make the call and kill 40 people.” It also explains why Jack believes they weren’t supposed to leave the island, accounts for his suicidal behaviour and is an excuse for why no one attended the funeral.
  • People may note that Richard Alpert, one of Ben’s right hand men, has not aged a day since encountering the teenage Ben escaping from the Dharma Initiative camp. We’re all familiar with the island’s restorative powers, perhaps in addition to preventing illness it also stave’s off age? Also, in a move that would imply some nice kharmatic balance in the island universe, maybe if people can’t die they also can’t have babies? That would certainly eliminate any population problems an ageless island-bound might create.
  • As an aside, this season finale completely makes up for the show’s aimless and disastrous, mid-season.
  • More importantly, the deal struck by the producers with the network, to give the TV show a specific amount of time (3 years – 100 more episodes) with which to complete is story arc is a major turning point in North American television. As my friend Dawn R. noted, American television may finally be learning from British television, in which good stories are allowed to be told, but aren’t flogged to death or extended beyond the their natural narrative arc. An important part of a good story is knowing when to end it.