The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), • Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, • Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, • Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and • Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.

Non-profits reinventing themselves as Social Entrepreneurship

With a trend toward decreased public funding for the not-for-profit sector, questions have been raised concerning the sustainability of not only not-for-profit organizations, but also the overall sustainability of their social change initiatives. An emerging ‘new breed’ of philanthropists is also generating significant changes in the way philanthropy will be practiced in the 21st century. The nonprofit environment has changed. • Community needs are growing in size and diversity. • More nonprofits are competing for government and philanthropic funds. • Traditional forms of funding are becoming smaller and less reliable. • New for-profit businesses are competing with nonprofits to serve community needs. • Funders and donors are demanding more accountability. “In the face of this new reality, an increasing number of forward-looking nonprofits are beginning to appreciate the increased revenue, focus and effectiveness that can come from adopting “for profit” business approaches. Increasingly, they are reinventing themselves as social entrepreneurs, combining “the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination…

PBS- The New Heroes

The New Heroes is a four-hour series, hosted by Robert Redford, which tells the dramatic stories of twelve social entrepreneurs who bring innovative, empowering solutions to the most intractable social problems around the world. Each story in this unique series illustrates the amazing changes that are possible when an innovative idea is coupled with optimism, a strategy for action, and a passionate belief in human potential.

Becoming a social entrepreneur takes both a vision for revolutionary change and the gumption to do something about it. Try these games and activities to learn more about the characteristics of a successful social entrepreneur and find out if you might have what it takes to transform a vision to reality…..

Private companies are rethinking the assumption that doing social good and making a profit are mutually exclusive.

In a global marketplace, the importance of differentiating a product from one’s competition should not be underestimated, and growing corporate interest in areas such as corporate social responsibility are one way to do this.

This is not to say that those in the private sector are not motivated by more idealistic goals, but rather to note that some organizations are rethinking the assumption that doing social good and making a profit are mutually exclusive. Or, as noted in a discussion regarding the success of Ben and Jerry’s, a socially-conscious ice cream company, “… having a social conscience is also good for business”…

Non-profits reinventing themselves as Social Entrepreneurship

With a trend toward decreased public funding for the not-for-profit sector, questions have been raised concerning the sustainability of not only not-for-profit organizations, but also the overall sustainability of their social change initiatives. An emerging ‘new breed’ of philanthropists is also generating significant changes in the way philanthropy will be practiced in the 21st century. The nonprofit environment has changed. • Community needs are growing in size and diversity. • More nonprofits are competing for government and philanthropic funds. • Traditional forms of funding are becoming smaller and less reliable. • New for-profit businesses are competing with nonprofits to serve community needs. • Funders and donors are demanding more accountability. “In the face of this new reality, an increasing number of forward-looking nonprofits are beginning to appreciate the increased revenue, focus and effectiveness that can come from adopting “for profit” business approaches. Increasingly, they are reinventing themselves as social entrepreneurs, combining “the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination… http://www.managementhelp.org/soc_entr/soc_entr.htm

"Facebook Generation- Will Social Networks Change the Nature of Philanthropy"

Facebook Generation Will Social Networks Change the Nature of Philanthropy? By Tom Watson, 6/13/2007 A few weeks ago, my daughter and I started a bank and now we make loans to businesses all over the world. Now, before you speculate on my family wealth or means – and my place among the banking titans – consider that we started this little lending institution of ours with $250. And keep in mind that our “bank” is really one of thousands, that we meet with other owners online, and that they don’t appear to be captains of finance (from what I can tell by their snapshots).

The lending mechanism behind this is Kiva.org, one of the hottest startup organizations in the fast-growing and bustling public commons that exists between social networks and social causes. In this particular case, Kiva (Swahili for “unity”) is a registered 501c3 in California and a microfinance organization that connects small entrepreneurs in developing countries with a network of connected, online lenders.

But Kiva is also something of a social network not only do you “meet” the storekeepers and business owners of Ghana and Mexico (where I’ve lent my money) and other places, you can also read the profiles of your co-lenders. Participation is transparent, and some degree of virtual partnership is encouraged. Needless to say, Kiva also has a Facebook group and this is where it gets interesting.

Because sites like Kiva and Facebook – well, let’s call them networks, not sites – hold the promise of connecting social entrepreneurship with mass markets of consumers: of linking the motivation behind philanthropy with the aspiration to bring about change. And the result may change how developed societies come to view charity and causes.

For the uninitiated, Facebook is a vast social networking platform that began among college students and alumni and is now spreading rapidly through the wired world. Members maintain “profiles” that include interests, links to blog posts and articles, photos, message boards and the like. The site recently opened its platform to outside software developers, who quickly added a bunch of services to entertain and connect members. Even in the super-hot market for so-called Web 2.0 companies, Facebook remains stubbornly independent and iconoclastic. Technology entrepreneur Marc Andreessen explains the Facebook advantage on his blog:

“Facebook is providing a highly viral distribution engine for applications that plug into its platform. As a user, you get notified when your friends start using an application; you can then start using that same application with one click. At which point, all of your friends become aware that you have started using that application, and the cycle continues. The result is that a successful application on Facebook can grow to a million users or more within a couple of weeks of creation.”

Replace “application” with “cause” and you get a sense of what a social network with the power of Facebook can mean to organizations and why I believe social entrepreneurs should seriously consider building social networking applications even while they fund and build world-changing organizations.

A few are doing just that. Kiva may score highest on the cool meter it did with my 15-year-old when I gave her an account for her birthday—but other organizations “get the network” as well.

Take PlayPumps International. [Editor’s note: PlayPumps is a client of the interactive services group of onPhilanthropy.com’s parent company, Changing Our World, Inc.] PlayPumps International will install 4,000 water systems (which employ children-powered playground equipment) throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and bring clean water to 10 million people by 2010. More than 900 PlayPump systems have already been installed in four countries.

Great story, but building support for the mission is tricky in a media landscape where stories about African poverty are many. Enter the social network. Starting from zero, PlayPumps has built a following of nearly 500 Facebook members, many of them at colleges around the U.S. Practical goals are modest: support for small-scale fundraising operations. One Facebook group member sums it up:

“I have to say that they are truly here to make a difference! Every member that attends a local school here in Burlington Vermont can help aid in this fundraising effort by seeing us in the Champlain College Bookstore starting April 18th. Be ready to bring your dollar to donate!”

But the overall aim is quite large and vital to PlayPumps’ future - sustainability through a network of linked supporters. In my view, more organizations - particularly those who rely on real-world members and startups trying to gain a foothold—will turn to digital social networks to help solve the sustainability question.

I did a quick check on Facebook by running a query on all the groups that my “friends” - a very loose descriptor on social networks - belong to. Results were interesting. The fastest-growing groups in my network are political or linked to the blogosphere (or both). Then there are the fun and goofy groups (a la “Bryan and Matt’s Excellent Alaska Roadtrip”). But there were also some small, grassroots causes that could easily pass for social ventures—and some larger causes that are taking advantage of the power of social networking:

Dreams Across America was started by a group of Bay Area immigrants to promote immigration reform and highlight the plight of undocumented workers. It has 120 members.

I’m Going Green is a group backed by the environment cause marketing of Starbucks, who partnered with the nonprofit Global Green USA. Its Facebook group features a “Planet Green Game” that spreads the message of ecology. It has 9,155 members.

And then there’s Future Leaders in Philanthropy or FLiP as we call it around here. It’s our own Facebook group, populated (mainly) by young people making the nonprofit and philanthropy sector their career. It has 255 members. Still, I looked further—searching for the social entrepreneurs. I found ‘em in the development of a new application for Facebook. Causes is the name of an applet written by an organization called Project Agape, a for-profit startup backed by venture capitalists in California. The company was co-founded by Sean Parker, a managing partner at The Founders Fund and a co-founder of Napster, Plaxo, and Facebook, and Joe Green, who comes from a background of grassroots organizing, having worked on the ground in political campaigns on the city, state, and presidential level. Causes allows organizations to raise money and gather supporters within Facebook. Say the founders:

“This is a natural evolution of social networking. Leveraging real world social networks is an important part of activism, fundraising, and political campaigning. This is especially true of grassroots activism, local-chapter style nonprofit organizations, and the walks/runs used by many charities to raise money. Given all this, it’s a bit surprising that online social networks haven’t been more aggressively leveraged until now.”

They’re right - it is a bit surprising. In March, I’d attended the fourth annual Skoll World Forum in Oxford, and I wanted to see how much of that vocal, outward-looking, innovative and energetic crowd could be found on Facebook. But there isn’t a Skoll group on Facebook that I could find. Nor did I find many of the organizations who presented there. The Acumen Fund, one of the best-known social venture funds, has started a small group but you have to ask to be admitted and it has 18 members at present - but not Jacqueline Novogratz, the Fund’s outspoken public face. Ashoka (a partner in the Causes launch) has an open group of 184 members, but it does not include Bill Drayton, one of the original leaders in the social venture movement. College Summit has a group for its students. Surdna has a small group for its college scholars program. But no principals.

To be sure, Skoll has its own network and information-sharing site, SocialEdge, which is a terrific resource. And it’s still early days in the development of the Facebook platform, which may or may not grow dominant over time. Organizations still have plenty of opportunity to explore social networks.

Still, Facebook’s tremendous growth to 24 million active users and the still-nascent organizing around causes is a vital development and one that may well change how the next generation deals with philanthropy. I believe that social entrepreneurs have a huge stake in being part of this development—and that they can and should experiment aggressively with the form.

For their part, networks like Facebook also have a stake in being part of philanthropy - creating the plumbing, to pick a metaphor. Commitment and the desire to change the world run deep in our culture, just as deep as the more superficial social pursuits. These services must remain open and welcoming to causes of all kinds. Further, I do believe that the “walled garden” concept - think America Online in the 90s—is not as potent as the open network. In his review of the new Facebook platform , media veteran John Borthwick addresses the question of open access:

The semantic web needs to be distributed at its core, another walled garden is too low a bar for a really powerful and interesting social network to aim for. I hope Facebook [will] actually step beyond the marketing hype and deliver a social platform for the web.

Christianarchy is here!

My personal weblog that links Christian anarchism with non-violence and social justice.

rethos.com - driving corporate social resonsibility

Ahhh so the rethos.com platform is live – Welcome! This summer was an excited final push to get all of the pieces ready for the go-live. It should be quite and exciting roll-out and it is great to be part of a community of allies that extends around the globe.

One of my personal issues of passion is Corporate Social Responsibility, a critical part of the rethos.com platform. As on of my first postings I would like to take a stand and state that I feel the involvement of private organizations will be critical over the next century in finding solutions to social and environmental issues.

I feel that if we are to have meaningful discussions on CSR and corporate behavior, then the rethos.com community should have ready access to the publicly available CSR reports published by some of the biggest corporations in the world and the corporations that are leading the charge on corporate social responsibility.

This is my call to action to others to join me in uploading information on corporate social responsibility so that our discussion will be founded on fact and published report.

I will start the effort with offering an initial selection of reports. I will also offer some commentary and analysis on these reports… when I have a bit more time ;) right now things are a bit intense with getting the rethos.com platform on the runway and ready for takeoff.

The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success -- and How You Can Too By: Andrew W. Savitz with Karl Weber

Andy Savitz tells us in THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE, is the place where corporate and societal interests intersect. It is a new way to measure the bottom line – where profits go side-by-side with environmental and social performance – and an illuminating way to understand the often-fuzzy concept of sustainability. It is a spot that the best-run and most profitable companies have already found, and Savitz, former head of PricewaterhouseCooper’s Sustainability Business Services practice, says is attainable for any business that knows where to look and is willing to change.

---

From the book:

• Hershey Foods, the legendary candy maker that blew a $12 billion dollar deal because it failed to heed social and economic concerns of its employees and of the town that gave it its name;

• PPL, the reviled electricity behemoth that achieved a love fest with environmentalists and Native Americans by agreeing to remove its hydro-electric dam from the Penobscot River in exchange for a sizable cash payout;

• Toyota and GE, which are turning social responsibility into financial opportunity at the same time that Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Exxon are paying a price for thumbing their noses at it.

But Savitz’ book is more than a look back at what other companies have done right or wrong. It helps business leaders look ahead to how their company can find its own sweet spot – from such simple steps as reducing energy consumption and employee accidents to the complex business of creating economic development while doing business with the poor.

“Businesses,” Savitz writes, “are being forced to respond to social, economic and environmental changes in the world around them. Just as global warming is fundamentally altering the commercial and regulatory landscape for energy and auto companies, so the advent of HIV/AIDS, SARS and persistent malaria is changing the basic business model for pharmaceutical companies. Just as Nike was transformed by the discovery of children working in its overseas factories, so Wal-Mart is now coming face to face with the ‘high cost of low wages’ and McDonalds’s with obesity. No sooner had Dell, Apple and IBM created the personal computer then they had to bridge the digital divide.”

“The truly sustainable company,” Savitz concludes, “would have no need to write checks to charity or ‘give back’ to the local community, because the company’s daily operations would not deprive the community, but would enrich it.”

---

Review by: Leslie Johnston

In The Triple Bottom Line, authors Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber look at how businesses can prosper financially while protecting and renewing the social, environmental, and economic resources they need—and how they can fail if they do not protect and renew these resources. Sustainable businesses are ones that measure, document, and report a positive return on investment (ROI) on all three bottom lines: economic, environmental, and social. This Triple Bottom Line reflects an increase in the company’s value, both its profitability and shareholder value and its social, human, and environmental capital.

The authors contend that sustainability should be thought of as the common ground shared by a company’s business interests (those of its financial stakeholders) and the interests of the public (its nonfinancial stakeholders). This is the sweet spot, the place where profits blend with the pursuit of the common good. The best-run companies around the world are identifying and moving into their sweet spots, and they are developing new ways of doing business in order to get there.

---

Book Description

The Triple Bottom Line is the groundbreaking book that charts the rise of sustainability within the business world and shows how and why financial success increasingly goes hand in hand with social and environmental achievement. Andrew Savitz chronicles both the real problems that companies face and the innovative solutions that can come from sustainability. His is a hard-line approach to bottom-line fundamentals that is re-making companies around the globe.

From the Inside Flap

Your company’s sweet spot is where its financial interests coincide with social and environmental interests.

It is called sustainability, and Fortune 100 companies like DuPont, PepsiCo, and Toyota are beginning to see it as the most transformative business concept in years. Responding to growing pressure from regulators, environmentalists, and socially concerned shareholders, these and other firms are charting solutions that will reap environmental and social rewards along with financial ones. Companies that defy the principles of sustainability find themselves suffering significant setbacks to their business objectives.

The Triple Bottom Line is the groundbreaking book that charts the rise of sustainability within the business world and shows how and why financial success increasingly goes hand in hand with social and environmental achievement. Andrew Savitz chronicles both the real problems that companies face and the innovative solutions that can come from sustainability. His is a hard-line approach to bottom-line fundamentals that is re-making companies around the globe.

Savitz identifies and explains this new management concept in plain language and with good humor, showing leaders in organizations of all sizes and industries exactly how they can benefit. He provides memorable stories and simple rules of the road to help you find your company’s sweet spot. In the end, he shows that sustainability is a fundamental approach to management that lets businesses protect and grow the resources they need to succeed.

From the Back Cover

Praise for The Triple Bottom Line

“Whether you are a corporate manager, investor, consumer, or public official, this book will change your view of how corporations can succeed for themselves and for society. Savitz combines vision and practical advice in an elegant presentation.” —George Stephanopoulos, chief Washington correspondent, ABC News anchor, This Week with George Stephanopoulos

“Informative, persuasive, and practical, containing valuable advice for anyone seeking a more responsible and profitable approach to business.” —Steve Reinemund, chairman and chief executive officer, PepsiCo

“The main challenge of sustainability is how to take it from concept to action. Andy Savitz communicates in plain language what sustainability is and how everyone in the organization can help achieve it.” —Charles O. Holliday, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, DuPont

“An engaging mix of powerful ideas and practical advice. Values matter and Savitz shows how profitability and responsibility can and must go hand in hand.” —Michael Morris, chairman, president, and chief executive officer, American Electric Power

“At long last a plain English, action-oriented guide to business sustainability illustrated with practical examples from world-class companies.” —Richard Cavanagh, president, The Conference Board, Inc.

“Andy Savitz gets it. He also happens to be witty, sensible, and a good writer as well as a good business strategist—sort of a modern Ben Franklin. That makes this book a joy to read as well as indispensable for businesspeople who wish to succeed in this new age.” —Walter Isaacson, president and chief executive officer and former chairman, Aspen Institute; author, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

“A bold and readable foray into this complex subject. Readers will come away enlightened.” —Kert Davies, research director, Greenpeace US

About the Author

Andrew W. Savitz knows about sustainability from working as one of the lead?partners in the Sustainability Business Services practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers, where he helped firms both large and small increase their profitability and responsiveness to environmental and social issues. Before that, he was a senior environmental enforcement official for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Savitz now runs Sustainable Business Strategies, an independent advisory firm based in Boston.

Karl Weber is an author specializing in business, social, and political topics. He coauthored the business best-seller The Power of We with Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels, as well as How to Grow When Markets Don’t with acclaimed management consultant Adrian Slywotzky.

An Entrepreneur That CARES....

An Entrepreneur Who Cares Jeff Skoll earned his wealth as the first president of eBay. Now, he looks for ways that business can change the world for the better

Jeff Skoll

STORY TOOLS Printer-Friendly Version

E-Mail This Story

Jeff Skoll thinks - and cares - big. He caught the entrepreneurial bug long before 1995, the year he earned his MBA at Stanford University Graduate School of Business and became the first president of eBay, the online-auction site. This was after he had already launched two of his own computer consulting and rental businesses.

A serious back problem inhibited Skoll’s ability to work the long hours that eBay required—and was good motivation to take his work in another direction. In 1999, as Skoll prepared to step away from eBay’s day-to-day operations, he started the Skoll Foundation, which supports the field of social entrepreneurship, or the use of business ideas to affect social change. Throughout the transition, Skoll maintained his ties to the MBA world by serving on Stanford’s board of advisers and eventually, in 2004, opening the Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Oxford Saïd Business School in Britain.

Now, at age 40, Skoll’s newest venture is serving as CEO of Participant Productions, an entertainment company currently working on eight feature movies that raise awareness of socially relevant issues. He recently spoke with BusinessWeek Online reporter Jeffrey Gangemi. Edited excerpts of their conversation follow:

Q: How did your MBA experience affect your success as an entrepreneur? A: A few years into starting my first company, I realized that I didn’t have the business skills to [take] it much farther. For one, I was missing a general understanding of how the business world works. Deeper than that, I was lacking knowledge of financial underpinnings, as well as specific skills like organizational behavior and accounting—all the basics that one uses for a business. I thought that going back to school would be the best way to improve those skills. Fortunately, I managed to get in [to Stanford GSB].

What was valuable wasn’t just the academics but also the exposure to people who were in business. The network of classmates and alumni later became helpful when we started eBay. Right from the earliest days, some of my classmates were helpers.

I often joke that Pierre [Omidyar], a fellow Stanford MBA, and I took the company so far, and then we needed someone to manage the tedious aspects of actually running the business, so we found a Harvard MBA—Meg [Whitman].

Q: Why did you found the Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship? A: As we began to look at the field of social entrepreneurship, we felt that it had reached a point where it warranted an academic rubric to oversee and study it. Such a tremendous groundswell of resources have been going into the world of social entrepreneurship, to the point where employment in the social sector is running about three times the rate as that of the corporate sector.

I’m still active with Stanford GSB, so that would’ve been the obvious first port of call. However, social entrepreneurship is an international phenomenon. Oxford’s Saïd Business School is both a very international and outward-looking school, and also one that’s young and entrepreneurial enough to quickly adapt a new program into its thinking.

Each year, we award five full scholarships to MBA students who focus on social entrepreneurship. Also, we award research fellowships and make elective courses available to all MBA students. The Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, an annual event, also serves as an information-sharing venue.

Q: What are some good examples of social entrepreneurship? A: At Stanford, there was a project that addressed a common problem in many countries—lack of electricity. In an enclosed environment, it’s unhealthy and often dangerous to start fires all the time, so a group of students invented an affordable solar-powered flashlight that charges all day and uses long-lasting LED bulbs.

Also, a group of fellows at Oxford came up with an idea to make nonarable land fertile and create jobs and make a low-emission diesel fuel that could be readily used. The idea was to plant a certain weed that grows and fertilizes the worst possible land. That weed can then be harvested and turned into diesel fuel at a fairly low cost. Because the process is labor-intensive, it would be hard to carry out in an industrialized nation but would be perfect for countries like India, where low-cost labor is available.

Q: Do you think alleviation of poverty hinges more on small or big business? A: Right now, about half the world lives on less than $1 a day. Social entrepreneurship offers a way to get to that half of humanity that isn’t attractive to traditional big businesses and bring them up the ladder. The first rungs on the ladder require a different way of thinking about things.

The concept of the microloan is effective, because it helps individuals bring themselves out of poverty with small loans and low interest rates. They start their own small businesses and are responsible for paying back the loan. Over time, the Grameen Bank, an organization in Bangladesh - along with others that have copied the concept - says it has lifted 60 million people out of poverty. Muhammad Yunus, the founder, is the prototypical social entrepreneur, because he had an idea that used small amounts of money yet affected many people.

Q: How have you involved MBAs in Participant Productions? A: I had a group of four MBA students work for me at Participant Productions last summer. We ended up hiring one of those students, who is now our vice-president of strategic planning. A group of four students from Oxford will work on a project, and an intern from Stanford will join us this summer.

Q: What message would you send to MBA students? A: In part, the message is that any individual can make a difference. Business skills, when well applied, can do more than just make money. They can potentially make money and do some real good, which is immensely satisfying. To do that, it’s important to think outside the box, take risks, and be an entrepreneur.

Facebook under fire over targeted advertising

Excerpt:

Social networking site Facebook has announced it will increase its use of personal information to target advertising to individual members, despite privacy concerns among its 39 million users.

The California-based site will add new advertising features in coming weeks in an attempt to boost revenue.

Until now, Facebook has not allowed external websites to trawl its member database, which includes about 5 million UK users.

Owen Van Natta, the company’s chief revenue officer, said making advertisements more personal was a priority for Facebook.

But Chris Kelly, chief privacy officer, defended the move, saying the site had always made it clear to users that their personal information may be used to target advertisements and promotions.

(Click on Source to read more)

Rants from the Alphabet Series ('W' is for 'Wealth')

My house is bigger than your house. My car is more expensive than your car. My paycheck is bigger than your paycheck. My stock portfolio is bigger than yours. While we know competition is inherent in nature, the method that we use to measure our own value has not evolved much beyond the cave-dwelling era. We choose the easiest milestones to measure ourselves against others. And we continue to ignore intangibles, and most of the real value manifests in that which is not readily seen. If I make more money than you, am I a better person? Do I add more value to society? Will I be missed more than you? Despite America placing a great deal of Judeo-Christian reverence on that which cannot be seen, we seem to readily ignore it outside of our own houses of worship and especially when it comes to defining wealth.

We use a language of finance and mathematics to quantify the extent our wealth. Uncle Neil is worth millions. Uncle Dan is our ‘character’ in the family, he was in the Peace Corps and now he works with the homeless somewhere, can you imagine that? I wonder what caused Uncle Dan to give up and drop out like that? And can you imagine, his wife and poor children barely scraping by? What does she do—oh, that’s right she teaches in the public school system, poor dear.

What doesn’t get discussed is that while living in the large home (and “summering” elsewhere), driving the nice BMW’s and enjoying the large stock portfolios one of Uncle Neil’s children is in their second round of rehab. Uncle Neil is having an affair and so is his wife, a functioning alcoholic.

Who is wealthier and worth more? It depends on if we measure, and what we use to measure. Why do we use a financial tools to measure? Because those that have amassed significant wealth choose to use a moneystick for comparison. You always play the game you can win. Think of a large pyramid. Those at the top amass greater wealth by enlisting more people at the bottom and middle-levels. They don’t really care what level you attain, provided it is beneath them. It is interesting to me that when a friend invites us to a “special business opportunity” and we go to an Amway presentation we may snicker, however we are previewing a microcosm of American Capitalism (not a free-market). It is how the system works (or doesn’t work depending upon your perspective).

There is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to provide a nice lifestyle for yourself and your family. However when it becomes your only focus you begin to lose sight of why you began the journey in the first place. It is all too easy to succumb to the trappings of materialism and lose yourself. What is important is as individuals we must move beyond abdicating the definition of success, self-worth, wealth and value to others, especially when they have a selfish interest in establishing the rules and framework of the game.

We are told that taxes are bad, they interfere with our ability to accumulate wealth and prevent us from our place at the top of the pyramid. We are told this about taxes while our neighborhoods, schools, roads and levee’s erode and decay. Ask anyone at the top of the pyramid if they accumulated their wealth merely through avoidance of taxes. We do not need “Tax Relief”. What we need is a system that will allocate societal resources that will improve the foundation of America while providing a better future for generation after generation. We may seek to pay less in taxes to increase our individual holdings, while weakening our communities, neighborhoods and towns.

Business faces the same set of issues. America has been weakened by focus on short-term business indicators, revenue, profit and equity value. While these measures are important, they are simple indicators of the state of a particular business, and how it compares to its peers. Long term strategy and sustainability are traded for short-term gains and we now suffer from an intense focus on profit. Profit is being squeezed out, not by adding value but by externalizing costs to society and this is the real tax that society pays. This tax is not assessed by the American Government, it is assessed by the wealthy elite by consuming resources, polluting our land, water and skies and continuing to undermine our ability to have a representative government. This is the real tax on society, and absent a government that will protect society through regulation and enforcement the tax is growing at an unprecedented rate.

The wealthy will continue to reward corporations that generate profit without regard for anything else with their investment, support and political influence which result in eroding protections for society. We must counter this onslaught by no longer spending our money on products (whenever possible) on products that are the result of such an economic free-for-all. If we are successful as a society, the equity value of corporations that are supporting a neoconservative fascist agenda will drop faster than you can say Romney-Thompson in 08—as revenue moves to businesses led by visionaries that are evolving their companies toward a triple bottom line -a balance of people, planet and profit. Since there is nothing the elite fears more than a decrease of their wealth (as a direct measure of their own power and influence) they will be forced to move their investment into companies that are doing the right thing because that’s what the revenue and profits will dictate. The real economic revolution can begin.

Diamonds

Econ-Atrocity: Ten Reasons Why You Should Never Accept a Diamond Ring from Anyone, Under Any Circumstances, Even If They Really Want to Give You One Thursday, February 14, 2002

By Liz Stanton, CPE Staff Economist

1. You’ve Been Psychologically Conditioned To Want a Diamond. The diamond engagement ring is a 63-year-old invention of N.W.Ayer advertising agency. The De Beers diamond cartel contracted N.W.Ayer to create a demand for what are, essentially, useless hunks of rock.

2. Diamonds are Priced Well Above Their Value. The De Beers cartel has systematically held diamond prices at levels far greater than their abundance would generate under anything even remotely resembling perfect competition. All diamonds not already under its control are bought by the cartel, and then the De Beers cartel carefully managed world diamond supply in order to keep prices steadily high.

3. Diamonds Have No Resale or Investment Value. Any diamond that you buy or receive will indeed be yours forever: De Beers’ advertising deliberately brain-washed women not to sell; the steady price is a tool to prevent speculation in diamonds; and no dealer will buy a diamond from you. You can only sell it at a diamond purchasing center or a pawn shop where you will receive a tiny fraction of its original “value.”

4. Diamond Miners are Disproportionately Exposed to HIV/AIDS. Many diamond mining camps enforce all-male, no-family rules. Men contract HIV/AIDS from camp sex-workers, while women married to miners have no access to employment, no income outside of their husbands and no bargaining power for negotiating safe sex, and thus are at extremely high risk of contracting HIV.

5. Open-Pit Diamond Mines Pose Environmental Threats. Diamond mines are open pits where salts, heavy minerals, organisms, oil, and chemicals from mining equipment freely leach into ground-water, endangering people in nearby mining camps and villages, as well as downstream plants and animals.

6. Diamond Mine-Owners Violate Indigenous People’s Rights. Diamond mines in Australia, Canada, India and many countries in Africa are situated on lands traditionally associated with indigenous peoples. Many of these communities have been displaced, while others remain, often at great cost to their health, livelihoods and traditional cultures.

7. Slave Laborers Cut and Polish Diamonds. More than one-half of the world’s diamonds are processed in India where many of the cutters and polishers are bonded child laborers. Bonded children work to pay off the debts of their relatives, often unsuccessfully. When they reach adulthood their debt is passed on to their younger siblings or to their own children.

8. Conflict Diamonds Fund Civil Wars in Africa. There is no reliable way to insure that your diamond was not mined or stolen by government or rebel military forces in order to finance civil conflict. Conflict diamonds are traded either for guns or for cash to pay and feed soldiers.

9. Diamond Wars are Fought Using Child Warriors. Many diamond producing governments and rebel forces use children as soldiers, laborers in military camps, and sex slaves. Child soldiers are given drugs to overcome their fear and reluctance to participate in atrocities.

10. Small Arms Trade is Intimately Related to Diamond Smuggling. Illicit diamonds inflame the clandestine trade of small arms. There are 500 million small arms in the world today which are used to kill 500,000 people annually, the vast majority of whom are non-combatants.

References:

• Collier, Paul, “Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for Policy,” World Bank, June 15, 2000.
• Epstein, Edward Jay, “Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?“, The Atlantic Monthly, February 1982.
• Global Witness, “Conflict Diamonds: Possibilities for the Identification, Certification and Control of Diamonds,” A Briefing Document, June 2000.
• Human Rights Watch/Asia, “The Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labor In India,” Human Rights Watch Children’s Rights Project.
• Human Rights Watch, “Children’s Rights: Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.”
• Kerlin, Katherine “Diamonds Aren’t Forever: Environmental Degradation and Civil War in the Gem Trade,” E: The Environment Magazine.
• Le Billon, Philippe, “Angola’s Political Economy of War: The Role of Oil and Diamonds, 1975-2000,” African Affairs, (2001), 100, p.55-80
• Mines and Communities, “The Mining Curse: The roles of mining in ‘underdeveloped’ economies,” Minewatch Asia Pacific/Nostromo Briefing Paper, February 1999.
• Other Facets, Number 1, April 2001; Number 2, June 2001; Number 3, October 2001, www.partnershipafricacanada.org/hsdp/of.html [dead link]

© 2002 Center for Popular Economics

Green Companies to Greenbacks

Traditional financial management curicula establish that a corporation’s primary objective is to maximize the value of the firm and, in turn, maximize shareholders’ return. Advocacy groups and the socially responsible investing (SRI) community have nothing against companies that strive to increase earnings — so long as profits aren’t maximized at the expense of local communities, employees, and the environment.

What’s been difficult, though, is making the link between environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and financial performance. Over the years, dozens of studies have reported on how well corporate citizens perform from a financial standpoint.

My financial textbook, as well as some SRI skeptics, argues that companies that spend resources pursuing “extra-financial” objectives are at an inherent financial disadvantage to their competitors that instead devote those resources to seeking lower cost production, developing new products, and maximizing sales.

Back at KLD, I have been trying to reconcile these streams of thinking. I research companies for KLD’s Global Climate 100 (GC100) Index (http://www.kld.com/indexes/gc100/index.html) and am charged with evaluating companies’ leadership in mitigating the causes and consequence of global climate change.

Here, the links between financial materiality and environmental leadership seem crystal clear to me. GC100 companies are adding new capacity to produce solar panels, increasing their market share in the wind turbine market, patenting cutting edge clean energy technologies, and developing energy efficient products to help consumers and governments worldwide use less energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Demand for these technologies, services, and products is increasing at a remarkable rate.

A prime example of this phenomenon is First Solar (FSLR, http://www.firstsolar.com) – a U.S.-based solar cell producer with a particularly hot technology using cadmium telluride instead of silicon. FSLR completed it’s IPO in December 2006 — and the stock price has almost quadrupled from ~$30 to ~$114.

Without specifically referencing implications of global warming, analysts have cited higher capacity and technology efficiencies that result in lower cost/watt among the reasons for their optimism about the company’s financial performance.

By Megha Doshi

Coke, CSR and Coke’s Business

Coca-Cola CEO E. Neville Isdell has urged ‘more companies to get involved’ in protecting the environment. He spoke to a crowd of his peers at a meeting of the UN’s Global Compact in Geneva on July 7.

The Reuters report on his speech described his fervor with phrases such as ‘rattling the pulpit’ and ‘railing against his fellow executives to stand up and do more to protect the environment — particularly drinkable water’.

Exciting – and significant – as Isdell’s speech is, the Reuters story also captured the dilemma for corporations and their stakeholders in setting expectations – and limits – for what does not directly affect the corporate bottom line. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Non-governmental organizations and protest groups that once demonized global operations like Coke now sometimes look to businesses as “enablers of change,” Isdell said.

But he draws the line at Coke harnessing its legendary distribution network to deliver humanitarian material in Africa — a suggestion put forward by some aid agencies — where it is easier to find a can of Coke than, for example, anti-malarial mosquito nets.

“We can’t do that,” he told Reuters.

“At the end of the day we are a commercial enterprise and we can’t do what governments do or fail to do.”

It would be all too easy to paint Mr. Isdell’s statement as hypocritical, given his sermon on corporate involvement in the environmental cause. In fact, he and the Reuters reporter have pointed to one of the great challenges of our time.

Business campaigned in the last third of the 20th century for government to get out of their way, to let them and the market address the problems government had failed to remedy. Now leaders like Mr. Isdell call on government to address issues that are outside business’s scope.

Business and the public alike must recognize that for government to take on, say, malaria, requires money and power.

Corporations are going to have to pay for these efforts that benefit them through higher taxes – something at least in the US that goes counter the trend to lower or eliminate corporate taxes. It also means re-empowering government both through funding and through rebuilding its credibility. And in the process, we must redraw the balances of responsibilities among the constituents of our society.

It would be hard to overstate how hard it will be to do this. Still, I think it possible. Who would have thought ten years ago that a CEO of Mr. Isdell’s rank would tell his peers, “In the 21st century, you’re going to have to be seen as a steward of the planet.”

By Peter Kinder

Documentary Binge

Hello friends and fellow allies. My name is Jenn and I am from Vancouver BC. This is my first attempt at posting a blog (yes, I AM new to this whole blog thing!), and I feel I have found the perfect first posting. It is something I wrote just a few weeks ago after a “documentary binge”. I welcome and ask for your thoughts, opinions and contributions. As a young student I am still seeking to improve my communication skills and thus I also invite technical feedback on how you think I can improve my informal writings. This piece in particular is what I would call personal ramblings, but even in personal writing there is room for growth. So without further ado here is my first blog post of personal ramblings…

I just finished a two day documentary marathon. I watched three documentary films entitled Jesus Camp, Paper Clips and Radiant City (2 of three I have posted to my Rethos profile). These documentaries solidified my belief that I must act and that I must act immediately. Moreover, in the last few months (and also throughout my lifetime) I have also watched a slew of Hollywood blockbusters, ( such as V for Vendetta, Pulp Fiction, Accepted, Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda, 300, An Inconvenient Truth, Spy Game, among many others), that I believe pointedly, although dramatically, serve to reflect the state of our global society.

Through these films I have been able to extract information – via their themes and messages – that leads me to believe two key things: 1. history can and will repeat itself in passive societies, and, 2. the only way to counteract a passive society is to mobilize it. While some may not initially agree, I do believe that it is our responsibility as liberated, democratic, free citizens to enact a movement to actualize the changes which will allow us to function as a transparent, sustainable global society. As an analogy, I suggest that it is time we merge from the fast lane of no-limits progress into the “slow lane” of forethought, sustainability, science and information. Essentially, we as a greater global society need to put the breaks on long enough to pause, reflect and change course. Regardless of acceptance of these ideas, I personally believe that a new age, a new way of living will impose itself on us as humans as we enter an era of resource scarcity – realizing this and deciding to act is how you too can enter the “slow lane”.

Another realization I’ve had is that we are living in a world of extremes. Through our collective passivity and consumerist lifestyles, we are continually propagating these extremes. Everyday, the contrast between rich and poor, privileged and under-privileged, educated and uneducated becomes sharper, clearer and more tangible, while the division between church and state, private and public becomes oppositely and equally more obscure. Therefore, I believe one of the only paths to change left is to attempt to temper our extremes (foot off the gas, onto the break, signal on, merge right (figuratively, not politically!). By doing this, we will begin to clarify the ever so important independence of our governments from big-business and religion.

How do we do this though, is the question. I believe we do this by acting and acting in a collective, cohesive, goal oriented direction. The direction should be forward, towards a sustainable, socialist and information based society, with a course mapped by science and momentum driven by citizens, consumers and voters empowering themselves to act, non-violently and transparently towards goals of resorting balance in all arenas of life. By identifying the social problems, fallacies and misinformations that have lead to our current state of existing, the countering each of those problems with equal and opposite reactions to the problem’s root causes we increase the probability of achieving the greater goal of positive societal progression. By addressing root causes we slowly, and naturally stop the cycles which are perpetuating said problems, and thereby begin change. I hate to sound apocalyptic, but I do believe that without intervention, the probability of societal collapse is inevitable (this according to theories from comparative civilizations studies and general chaos theory).I for one refuse to stay passive and I will choose to engage myself in every arena. Even if my dreams are never actualized, I will have the peace of mind afforded by the knowledge that I tried.

Furthermore, the more I educate myself, the more I feel as if I am successfully breaking down the lifetime of conditioning and excuses that I have lived and propagated in my daily life to feel better about doing nothing. The more I know the more I want to change. It is time for someone to stand up for the principals of democracy, the true meaning of freedom of information and assume responsibility for the for the effects of a damaged capitalist system. We may not have purposefully created any of these problems, but we are allowing them not only to continue, but to mutate exponentially by accepting, excusing and generally being passive in our consumption and involvement in the political process. I am committing to act and I invite you to join me.

Wealth Distribution

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/weal th.html

This is the end result of private ownership of the means of production. Turns out greediness is not good…

History has taught us one very good lesson again, and again, and again. Man is not meant to have concentrated power for one very good reason – individual man is primarily concerned with his own interests. Even kingships that began with altruistic intentions inevitably evolved into corrupt institutions of oppression. This happens over and over. And, we have let it happen again. Even if it began with altruistic intentions, like letting the people own whatever they can so society will regulate itself with the market. If the people don’t like a product they will switch to another…sounds good right?

Well…what if the product is indispensable to modern life. Lets imagine a world so polluted we have built domes over cities, and in these domes we have to have purified air. In keeping with the capitalist mentality we decide to let air be privatized. So we let air companies start up. Naturally it will be a very big industry, and these companies will become very rich. Money will flow from the people to the pockets of these few people. Now, these people have become very powerful, and, based on historical probability, will become corrupt. They will continue to try and make more and more money, gain more and more power, they will raise prices, reduce wages, and essentially exploit the poor, after all there is no better way to get lots of production at little cost. I think we can imagine what would happen in this world of privatized air…the air companies would rule the world…they would have all the most crucial resource. The people would clamor for regulation and taxes, which the government might even impose. Well you know what, the air company doesn’t take crap from anyone. “You wanna tax me, you get no air…and everyone dies.”

But, what if the air industry wasn’t subject to private ownership. What if it was controlled by the very workers and communities who need it. Would it not be maintained at an affordable price, and would its profits not be used for the betterment of the community? Would it not maintain more ethical practices …Maybe even help do away with some of that pollution.

This is no different than what goes on today with the agriculture industry, the oil industry, mass communications, you name it. Corporations go to the Third World, get their cheap labor and come to the US and sell their products for god knows how much (as long as theres a market right). As a result of privatized means of production 80% of the American population is left with 16% of its wealth. I think it is actually a great testament to our country’s riches when eighty percent of its people get along pretty well with only sixteen percent of its money. On a global scale, however, half the population is left with a sordid 1 percent of wealth.

Imagine the prosperity that would be spread if these industries were controlled democratically. We would have a standard of living high above anything we’ve ever known. Just imagine the wealth of the top 1 percent being redistributed and controlled democratically. Is it not more logical to have these incredibly profitable and powerful industries be subject to democratic rule. Is it not logical to avoid having so much power rest with so few individuals. These individuals have their own interests in mind. They don’t need to fix public schools, they send their children to private ones. They don’t care about poverty, its gross to even think about. They want everyone to think like them. They want everyone to be self-interested. We must say no more. Because we should care if the kid down the street goes to school, that the Third World isn’t allowed a proper development because of US private interests, that millions have been slaughtered in the name of profits. Our world can be a much better place, the resources just have to be controlled differently. When democratic interests dominate, we all have a meaningful participation, we can reach the optimal decision through lively debate and uncontentious discourse. Democracy, real democracy, is a ubiquitous check and balance. Let’s expand this idea into the economic realm… tyranny should exist nowhere.

Parking spaces become temporary parks

Temporary parks dominate parking spaces across the U.S. reporter’s notebookOn the third-annual PARK Day, urban parking spaces across the country were commandeered and turned into small oases. Photos: Put up a PARK lot By Daniel Terdiman Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: September 21, 2007, 5:22 PM PDT

reporter’s notebook SAN FRANCISCO—It’s a gorgeous Friday morning and Jennifer McLaughlin is blending a smoothie in her rooftop garden.

Except this garden isn’t at her house, it’s not permanent, and it’s not even on a rooftop. In fact, it’s a temporary oasis of grass, a bench and a few chairs, some young pepper plants, some even younger brown-egged hen chicks, and it has all been installed in a parking space a stone’s throw, and in full view of, City Hall.

And McLaughlin is vigorously riding a bicycle that in turn is powering the blender for her smoothie.

This is all part of PARK Day, a collaboration between San Francisco non-profits Rebar and Public Architecture and the national Trust for Public Land, during which more than 40 cities across the country have seen countless groups take over parking spaces and turn them into an extremely wide variety of interpretations of the “public park.”

“People have gotten inspired because it’s easy to understand (how to) improve the quality of urban habitat,” said John Bela, a co-founder of Rebar. “People are taking their ideas into the streets. People are transforming these parking spots into extraordinary, creative acts, and acts of generosity.”

For McLaughlin and her colleagues from the San Francisco Department of Public Health who have set up a demonstration of what a sustainable rooftop garden looks and feels like, PARK Day is a wonderful chance to spread the message that urban environments don’t have to be a never-ending field of concrete and steel, and that even if you don’t have a traditional garden, you shouldn’t feel cut off from a life with green things.”

“The whole concept is to promote more open spaces,” McLaughlin said. “If you can’t have it on the ground floor, get it going on the rooftop.”

On this third PARK Day-the first occurred in 2005 when Rebar set up a temporary park in a single San Francisco parking spot-the creative spirit is definitely in the air, and it’s not just ordinary citizens who are getting involved.

Even San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has gotten on board, said Bela, who explained that the mayor had donated his personal parking space outside City Hall to the cause. Reached by phone, Bela said that he and some others from Rebar had parked their “human-powered, mobile public open space” in the mayor’s parking spot and that “people are chilling out and relaxing in the park.” Photos: Put up a PARK lot

Not far away, and around the corner from McLaughlin’s temporary park, Kathleen O’Day and several people from San Francisco’s Department of Public Works and Recreation and Parks department have set up what they’re calling a healing garden.

This might be the best of the day’s parks. It is a stunningly beautiful setup adjacent to San Francisco’s Main Library that is complete with a wall of bamboo, a bunch of other tall plants, 10 feet or so of healthy grass, a small garden pond filled with dahlias and two distinct spaces.

One side is designed for social interaction, O’Day said, while the other is for solo contemplation. In its entirety, the park, known as “Frankie’s Garden,” is dedicated to the (hopeful) healing of O’Day’s brother, Frankie, who is battling stage four hodgkin’s disease, and who is preparing for a stem cell transplant at a hospital in Boston.

“The whole idea was we wanted to create a garden that would be great for people to come and relax and get away from the city,” said O’Day. “So the idea (became) a healing garden because they knew what was going on with my brother.

Many of the temporary parks around San Francisco were dedicated to specific demonstration or community-oriented purposes.

For example, on Folsom Street, there was a dog park, complete with dozens of tennis balls and a rectangle of grass for any wandering pooches to circuit. Nearby were three other temporary spaces set up in parking spaces: a long table with plenty of chairs for sitting and reading, a beauty salon outside a cosmetology school, and a bike repair outlet.

In addition, a block or two away, Blair Randall and several others from San Francisco’s Garden for the Environment were doing hourly demonstrations of worm composting.

“My take is that it allows people to see established urban areas in a new way,” said Randall, “because I think urban areas become quite literally concrete in our minds, but we have all the power to change that. I don’t think you know the value of something until it’s gone. Being able to stop in at a garden in an urban area allows people to say, ‘Oh, wait, we don’t have this.’”

In a way, PARK Day was a dress rehearsal for what Public Architecture hopes will be a series of permanent installations set up in urban streets.

According to John Peterson of Public Architecture, the organization is planning on installing what he called a “bioswale,” a system that will capture storm water runoff from the street, filter it and send it back into the ground water. The system is expected to be installed next year in San Francisco’s South of Market district.

But for now, residents of San Francisco and the other cities participating-New York, Seattle, Portland, Miami and others-will have to be satisfied with one day of these terrific temporary oases. Now on News.com The XP alternative for Vista PCs Photos: The tools that make tech Blog: Make money from home—sort of Extra: Nobel laureate disses manned spaceflight

As an observer, I can say it’s quite a wonderful feeling to be walking down a heavily trafficked street and stumble upon one of these little pieces of green paradise amidst the asphalt and cars. Some, like the “Park-Fi,” which offered passersby benches and free Wi-Fi, were going for a community feel. Others were just trying to make an artistic statement.

But either way, the experience was positive and enriching. After all, how often do we get to see our cities deviate from the never-ending rush of cars, commerce and rules.

Of course, even PARK Day had its rules. Those who had commandeered parking spaces had to pay the meters.

At one point, at McLaughlin’s sustainable rooftop garden, a couple of her colleagues noticed that a meter maid was coming.

“We’d better feed the meter,” they said urgently.

But over at the temporary beauty salon, where there weren’t any meters, but where the space was in a one-hour parking zone, Cara Buglil said the meter maid was simply driving by and honking happily at her and her fellow cosmetologists.

StartingBloc Fellowship: Merging Business with Ethics

As an emerging leader, we invite you to apply for the 2008 StartingBloc Institutes for Social Innovation Fellowship program, which will take place in New York in Spring 2008.

As a StartingBloc fellow you will attend conference sessions on social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development at our partner graduate schools including MIT Sloan, NYU Wagner, The Fletcher School, Columbia Business School , Yale School of Management, and London Business School . At these sessions you will work with MBA and graduate school professors, as well as executives at firms like Google and City Year.

Following the fellowship program you will:

° Network with leading practitioners and academics in the fields of social entrepreneurship, corporate responsibility and sustainability.

° Access internships and jobs at our partner companies and social enterprises including Goldman Sachs, Domini Social Investments, New Leaders for New Schools and many more

° Access volunteer opportunities with social entrepreneurs around the world.

° Become eligible for early deferred admissions at partner MBA and graduate schools and gain access to admissions officers at leading graduate schools including Wharton, Columbia, London Business School, MIT Sloan, Fletcher, Duke Fuqua, NYU Wagner, Yale School of Management and many others.

° Access continuing education and networking opportunities for the rest of your life

We look forward to receiving your application. Apply now at www.startingbloc.org

A Challenge

Has anyone looked around them lately? What do you see? Has anyone asked themselves lately if they’re actually 100% or at least close to 100% happy in their daily real lives? Since I don’t know even half of you, or probably even a quarter of you personally, the cool thing about this group is that somehow, I do know all of you through someone else. Through this group and this project we are showing the world in a simple, logical way that we as human beings are all connected. Yes the internet (a non-human form of contact) is our means for exposing this phenomenon as probably true, however the essence of the experiment is to PROVE TO PEOPLE THAT WE ARE ALL CONNECTED. Therefore, as many of you have probably already realized the most basic deduction one can make from this realization, is that if we can all be connected via the internet then we are all essentially connected as a people, end of story, bottom line. We all also share some other common knowledge: We know that first and foremost we are all human beings, we know that we all have feelings, we know that we are all biological organisms, we know that we are all innately creative, compassionate and caring individuals.

Some of us also know that there is something about our physical environments right now that is destructing us as a people. The evidence is all around us: there is historical evidence that conclusively shows our societal patterns as merely replications and mutations of the exact same patterns which existed in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY THAT HAS COLLAPSED BEFORE US; there is tangible evidence available to each and everyone of us that the majority of our global population lives in poverty while a very few of us live in luxury – even in the western world, the dichotomy between rich and poor has grown so drastically that people of the “middle class” are now experiencing oppression on a regular basis; we have evidence that our forms of entertainment are serving to purposefully and intentionally desensitize us to extreme violence, extreme injustice and blind us to the dangers of extreme power. Have you ever stopped to question these things?

What’s even scarier to me, is that we are a collective global people have come to think it is common place and “socially acceptable” that our friends and family members are suffering because of our inaction – and let’s be honest even if we personally feel we are not suffering from any type of affliction, disease, oppression or any of the other atrocities which are happening everyday in the world around us, as members of this group and as citizens of the information age, we know that even though these things are not being physically experienced by ourselves, they are in fact being physically experienced by SOMEONE YOU PROBABLY KNOW INTIMATELY, LOVE and CARE FOR. The thing is, once you have been smacked in the face with this realization I believe you too will see clearly how important it is to take action.

And, the cool thing about action is that it is most effective when it has a powerful force behind it. Historically, when it comes to any type of action for change, the most powerful movements were those which were rooted in collective, unified, organized, goal oriented action. Moreover, the most successful movements for change within past societies and generations are those which have been led by everyday citizens who came together under the unified goal of change and peacefully and purposefully used the tools, systems and means available to them to bring about the change they wanted. Unfortunately, almost every society before us, and even some that exist today, have used violence to achieve their ends. I do not believe this is necessary in a truly democratic society. Actually, its really not at all because its against the laws as they exist right now.

Do me a favor: ask yourself what kind of future you want to live in: Does it involve personal wealth? does it involve being a mother or a father? does it involve being a family member of any type? does it involve you spending your free time as you wish, and having the financial means necessary to do so? Does it involve wanting to live in physically beautiful places? Now based on your image of your perfect future that you’ve now constructed in your imagination, ask yourself if you think that future is possible if our global village continues on its current path. If the future of your private dreams is not available to you then you should probably do something about that, hey?

Lets face it: by the collective us of western society not demanding: 1. the Ultimate transparency of our governments (within the restraints of logical reason of course); 2.complete disparity between our institutions and our governments; and, 3. Respect for the land that we live on the peoples that we share it with, we have served to disappoint and disrespect the people, principals and ideals the New World was founded on. Moreover, our passivity in the political process to date is only serving to detrimentally and exponentially propagate our problems as a society. We have only ourselves to blame. And when I use the expression that we’re not demanding these things from our governments I only mean to say: Because we are blatantly choosing to not hold those in power accountable for their actions (which in a democratic society, the idea is the people keep their governments in check, not the other way around), we as a people have then by definition given up our democratic rights through inaction. Which subsequently, logic says inaction = guilt. Guilt even for the international human sufferings we think we do not cause or have influence over. If we actually believe in freedom its time we friggin stand up for it, because face it people, just because we live in a place where we have “all the comforts of modern life” doesn’t mean we are living freely.

I realize I am raising very controversial issues by sharing these ideas, but that’s great. I’m not here to try to tell you what to do. I don’t have all the answers. I’m 22 years old and I’m scared of what will happen to my future if I don’t share what I know with everyone around me. The unfortunate situation of our world is that even our access to information is constantly being regulated, controlled and manipulated so that certain powers that be can keep an eye on us and therefore use that information to keep us wherever it is we need to be for them to continue to gain power. We as a people are being watched, patrolled and herded like cattle where-ever our governments tell us and it scares me – bottom line. I am not trying to spark some massive violent political uprising – what myself along with some very dear friends of mine – are trying to do is give you information that will shock you deeply enough so that you will be forced to question the world around you. If you start to question the world around you, you will be forced to act I’m sure about it. Also, if you’re wondering what sparked my passion to write this, among many other things you should definitely check out the movie zeitgeist (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). I have no attachments, affiliations or am otherwise involved in this project at all, although I @$@# well would like to be and am looking into it.

Furthermore, to be clear, the only action I’m talking about is passive, non-violent and simple. If we actually ARE living in democratic countries (which I currently question if we are), then we have the tools and means available to us to create change with little disruption to our lives as we know them. Remember, there’s safety in numbers and ultimate transparency will set you free: If a big enough group of us acts together in various but collective, cohesive and transparent movements we cannot be persecuted, charged or otherwise be held liable for our actions according to the fundamental meaning of living in a free, democratic society (side bar: the rule of engagement in this case being the actions in the name of change must be checked by and within the confines of the law as it currently exists at the time if they are to be meaningful and lasting. if you don’t like the laws you should probably change them. guess what you live in a democratic free society – you can). Therefore that means that taking political action and actualizing societal change in the 21st century, especially in a western democratic, internet-based society, should never have to be violent, complicated or beyond your personal means regardless of your age, sex, race, creed or any other orientation by which you choose to define yourself. Do me a favor…investigate that idea. If you realize I am speaking truth its that easy, please for don’t @@#%@@% let anyone tell you differently. one easy, passive, law-abiding thing I was thinking we could all do together is vote – what do you think about that? neat idea hey? we should probably also keep each other informed and figure out if who we vote for really represents what we want in our future. sounds simple I hope. Id hate to hear this is really more complicated because im not sure if i have time for such big complications right now. I’m a very busy young student, with a demanding part time job, a boyfriend, a wide social circle, a loving family and many other things I wish to attend to in my life. If this movement gets complicated it would really @$%@ with my whole program right now.

I’ve almost reached the end of my speal and well, If you are still not convinced, if you’re saying “give me a break, this girl thinks we’re not living in free societies – she’s another crazy hippie, fundamentalist yahoo,”, thats PERFECT! That means you will question what I’m saying…what do they call that? A catch 22 or something…either way you’ll probably do what i want, is all im saying. All I want is for you to question and get invovled ;). The point is: If you don’t believe me when I say that we are living in an absolutely crucial time in history and that the time for action is NOW, then I want you to do something for me. If you’re intrigued at all, please try this little exercise.

I want you to use this website: http://www.etymonline.com and look up TWO words: 1. DEMOCRACY (the socio-political state that operates most western countries, also known as the world super powers, all us good guys in the G8 or whatever) and 2. FASCISM. Then I want you to compare these definitions to your experiences in your daily life. Maybe make a sort of a list, write democracy and fascist state at the top (oooh wait, I’m feeling a lesson plan coming on – educators are you picking up the potential i’m throwing down right now?). Then list different life experiences you’ve had which fall under each category as you understand it after reading that word. Ok, done that? Great! Now look at your list. Ask yourself why, if we are living in a democratic country, do I have any life experiences listed at all under the fascist column? Ask yourself how you feel about that – if you so dearly value the idea of being a free thinking, free choosing, free roaming citizen, are you not at least a little bit interested in at least exploring this idea further?

So that’s it for now my friends…that’s all I’ve got to say for now. I hope I got you asking some questions. I hope you don’t understand everything I’ve said because then you will ask me questions. #$#$, I’m still asking questions and I hope I will be until I’m old and grey and shrivled. I want you to ask your friends questions. I want you to ask your teachers, elders and parents questions. And you should DEFINITELY ask your bosses, superiors and government officials close to you questions. And 100% for god’s sake ask the friggin internet questions, but make sure you dont accept every answer it spits at you – critical thinking is crucial to this processes and i’m pretty sure every individual is capable of critical thinking. How do I know this for sure? We all do it everyday, yup, you do it every day. its how you make decisions – its the deduction or reduction of an amount of information until it fits into your personal world and then becomes what you know as your truth. when something becomes truth you act on it (consciously and unconsciously) and therefore you might say that critical thinking has the possibility to manifest things from your subconsicous to your conscious and into your life (quantum phsyiscs, can you hear me?! cognitive behavioral therapists unite!) Eventually when you are seeking truth you will find it if you look…or at least I think so.

And ps: If you like to question things, I just want you to think of the important role living in a democratic society plays in your ability to do that.