Several us of have been following Randy Pausch since we heard (or heard about) his final lecture at Carnegie Mellon. In the May 3, 2008 Wall Street Journal, Jeff Zaslow, Randy Pausch’s co-author on a new book called The Last Lecture, tells the story about how he met Randy and how they wrote the book together. According to traditional media, some people have been critical of the authors for “exploiting the situation” by writing this book, I disagree. Watch the lecture (or read an excerpt from the book) before you decide.

In response to an interview that was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today I wrote the following e-mail to the interviewee:

A couple of your comments (made in your interview with the Star Tribune) I have heard many times (but in different words): “Philanthropy is not going to fill the gap.” And “We [as foundations] have to rethink our approach. Saying we’re going to be advocates, saying we have to tell others “You have to care about these people” hasn’t worked.”

These words remind me of a story I heard a while back about thousands and thousands of starfish that had been washed up on the beach and a little girl who was going down the beach and throwing them back into the ocean. When this little girl was met by a man who expressed that what she was doing was futile and would never matter. - Her response was to pick a starfish up, throw it into the water and said – “it mattered to that one”.

Philanthropy is very much about helping each individual and I think a lot of it operates as the little girl in this story, but what about those who are not reached? If the joy is great with helping one person, how much greater would be the joy if we could help millions.

I have heard that philanthropy has failed. I have heard many times that microfinance has failed. I have heard countless times that U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed, and I hear all the time that charity fails. I couldn’t disagree more. This is in part due to the fact that failure is relative to ones expectations, particularly as it relates to timetables.

(more…)

A Place Just Like Every Other Place, Only Not

The above NYT article, in short, is about the fact that the American countryside has become one homogeneous, sprawling scene. Everywhere you go it’s the same signs and logos; anything resembling regional diversity is all but erased by our corporate monoculture. One group, Scenic America, is fighting to change that. From their website:

“Scenic America is the only national 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated solely to preserving and enhancing the visual character of America’s communities and countryside.”

As I read the article, a bigger thought occurred to me . . . These Scenic America people are really just environmentalists! Not the standard sort of environmentalist, of course, but how can they not be included in the greater movement? The environment itself is much more than wilderness, clean air, pristine beaches, and thriving biodiversity - it is fundamentally the space in which we live. If that is true, we would be smart to include aesthetics (and more) in our definition of environment.

(more…)

I just attended a panel at the Hudson Institute - “‘Creative Capitalism’: Can it meet the needs of the worlds poor?” Panelists included: William Easterly, Eugene Steurle and Allen Hammond. Without any question the central theme of this panel was patience vs. impatience.

William Easterly made it clear that due to “regular capitalism” the level of poverty alleviation that has taken place in the last 50 years is without precedent. Conversation went back and forth (including the audience) about the rate of poverty alleviation not being good enough vs. lets look at the direction we are already headed and keep going. As I listened to this conversation I thought it ironic that I had just watched Jacqueline Novagratz‘ TED speech on “patient capital” at http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/157. Her main argument (paraphrased) was – if we want people to emerge with their dignity intact, it will take patience. She gives a great story of how she had to help a group of women in Africa unlearn the mentality created by aid before she was able to help them slowly lift themselves out of poverty. Her ideas of poverty elimination seem to contrast with Bill Gates’ “impatient optimism”.
(more…)

At Davos, Bill gates issued a call for a kinder capitalism which he calls “creative capitalism“. By now this is old news, but I have to comment.

First of all, I can’t think of a single system, program, etc. in the world’s history that has allowed more creativity than capitalism. If anything, the word “creative” should be a part of the definition of capitalism. With capitalism Bill has all the room in the world to be as creative as he wants - capitalism has always allowed him to do exactly that! Nobody stopped him in the past and nobody is stopping him now. This goes for Muhammad Yunus’ “Complete Capitalism” as well. Thanks to the “incompleteness” of capitalism Muhammad can also go and create his own version of what he considers to be a “complete capitalism”. John Mackey of Whole Foods seems to be doing what Mr. Gates and Mr. Yunus are trying to get at - more power to him.

I wonder if Bill either took no time at all, or racked his brain and frankly “creative”was simply the best he could come up with. In preparation for a talk at an event like the World Economic Forum in Davos, I like to think that Bill would have spent some time thinking about the word he would use to define the central concept in his speech. If so, then his choice just goes to show that capitalism can not be qualified with a human quality.

Can capatalism be creative? No. Can capatilism be loving? No. Can capitalism be mean? No. Can capitalism be funny? No. Why? Because capitalism is an inanimate economic system, and can not take on humanistic qualities. It’s amoral, apolitical, areligious, aetc. On the other hand - Can capitalism be modified as free-market? Yes.

What Bill should have said, and what would have made 100% more sense is - “we need kinder people in capitalism”. Aaaah, now that makes a little more sense. But, that would have admitted guilt. It wasn’t Bill that was oblivious and unconcerned with the poor when he led Microsoft - IT WAS THE CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM!

(more…)

There is an increasing need for people who are positive, who build up and construct instead of tear down and destruct. I sincerely hope PosiPeople can successfully create an online community where all members and visitors are truly positive.

Every once in a while I will go on a “read the comments binge”. I find that I’m driven to read more because of my fascination with how well practiced “commentors” are at the art of being nasty, angry and sarcastic. If I had more time to go around and add constructive ideas and opinions, I wonder if I would get any traction, or would I just be crushed by the entertainment factor of the flippant, crude and downright hateful tumult of opinions.

Visits to find out what people are saying about politics in the You Tube and Digg sites of the world remind me of a friend who would pull out his favorite trump card during heated conversations - “I’m talking louder, therefore I must be right” to which I would have to concede, with a smile, - “I’m at a loss, you win”. Of course this was a joke, but as with most jokes, there was some truth. Not truth in the sense that the statement is true, but that it represents what often takes place in society. Almost all people know either consciously or subconsciously that an appeal to the emotions can often wield much more power than well constructed thoughts can. Just ask my 2 year old about how effective crying is? In the adult world this behavior is often an outgrowth of an argument that has come to a stand-still - one man’s well thought out opinion against another’s, and if either is to come out looking victorious they must enter the world of politics where whomever can best appeal to the emotions of the masses “wins”.

(more…)