a trio of ted talks

i have been battling a head cold/self-diagnosed chest infection (that my mom is worried might be pneumonia or bronchitis) since friday, but i did manage to rally and go to a girls' christmas potluck, a 3rd annual 29th birthday party, a bridal shower, a hen night, and a family christmas dinner.

i am pretty sure that all that activity over the weekend has meant that i didn't have enough in the tank to fend off whatever is ailing me and i stayed at home and took a sick day today.  that meant i had a lot of internet time and came up with a few beauties that i thought i would share.

let's talk parenting taboos: rufus griscom & alisa volkman
although i am not a parent, i can only imagine the anxiety that having to take of a baby and then a child to raise would invoke in me.  and part of that is because there are so many messages, and i would argue most of them directed at women specifically, about what parenting should look and feel like.  and i think these two do a good job of blowing that myth out of the water while speaking frankly about their experiences as encouragement for others to do the same.  it is all about being real and it sounds like parenting is no different.

an independent diplomat: carne ross
once you get past his introduction, which sounds a little self indulgent, this former british foreign service officer has a great message and i liked what he had to say about how the best things that happen to him were 'random.'

his ngo independent diplomat is innovative and responding to the ever evolving world order, which are not words you would ever use to describe the traditional diplomatic corps.  his message lends itself well to my own experience of having exposure to the private sector to improve my performance and analysis within the non-profit sector.  and i wish more people saw the value of that cross pollination of ideas and principles and it seems that ross does.

and i agree with him entirely on his statement: 'the government of south sudan, you heard it here first, is going to be a new country in the next few years' and that he can make the connection between you and i and el shabaab, the somali militia organisation.  the world is shrinking and as it changes, the tool, agencies, and systems that we have used to make sense of it all also need to evolve at the same speed.  and the un is sadly lagging behind the innovators and great thinkers.

and to think, i went through many years of international relations and international development organisation asking who western sahara belongs to and here, the answer is on ted.

now... where is my cliff to fall off??

and this one takes the ted cake today - michael spector: the danger of science denial
one of my passions is learning and this paired with my commitment to social justice and socioeconomic development lends itself nicely to questioning what we know (or think we know) and then applying the scientific method to learn more about it to improve.  in a practical sense, this means that how we think we are helping can and should be examined, but rarely is.  doing good seems to be acceptable because it is accepted that charity or development or donations are good in and of themselves.  spector has the guts to say that attitude is wrong.

pseudo science and anecdotal information has taken over our collective knowledge retention and transfer.  and it is scary what can happen when we dismiss scientific evidence and confuse correlation and causation (and all those social science kids out there are likely nodding their heads along with spector throughout his talk).  we have more access to information than ever before and on one hand, i think that this radical democratic style of information sharing makes for a more dynamic and diverse conversation, but on the other hand, more crappy ideas, bad science, and misinformation is also shared in equal measure, if not more.

here's are some truths that spektor highlights that science has demonstrated to us time and time again:

• vaccines don't cause autism
• vitamins won't make you healthier
• all of our food has been genetically engineered to look, taste, and smell the way it does
• organic food is a rip off
• by not embracing scientific advancement in food production, we won't be able to feed all the people on the planet

this was a breath of fresh air for someone who often feels as though they are fighting against more people within the non-profit/development/charitable giving sector than outside of it to demonstrate not all international development projects are good, not all non-profit agencies deserve people's donations of time and money, and giving is not always better than receiving.

pardon the rant

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

knowing a thing or two

hello.  and welcome.  to the hundreds of people who have passed by my corner of the internet these past couple days.  i suppose i should have had this message up before, well, now.  but instead all those newcomers to my blog, thanks to a rather kind link from flotsam, see me whining about my life and being in a funk...

but (but!) here i am, trying not to be wah-wah-wahing for once in a bit of a while.

what a day i had.  it started off with a message that my slow cooker had arrived and was ready for pick up. and a day that starts off like that is bound to be a good one.  what is better is that my slow cooker was free (remember that laptop i bought?  i put it on my credit card and earned enough points to order a slow cooker!) and that it matches the rest of my kitchen appliances, which pleases my obsessive sensibilities.

i began my workday at noon (because i can!) and headed to a townhall meeting with some of the executive of our company and was thrilled that some of my work was not only mentioned in the quarterly update, but praised as good company practice.

but that is not all.  i was mildly dreading heading to yet another meeting with an organisation that i volunteer with after my shortened workday, but was again pleasantly surprised to find that i was regarded as an expert and advisor to a locally based international foundation.  this was all well and good, however, until i had a one-on-one conversation about an upcoming initiative that i not-so-affectionately called voluntourism-lite.

the same qualities of voluntourism are apparent: the focus put on the travellers' experience, no lasting impact or clear outputs of the visit, short term stays in communities, and time and energy put out by the host organisation that is likely motivated by a desire to show that they really are a great organisation doing really good work (a sort of self preservation and marketing to the foreign visitors).

i got in quite a heated discussion about this and i just kept coming back to the question of why?  why is this happening?  to try and head off those who would otherwise seek out a true voluntourism experience and offer them something a little less corrupt and possibly more meaningful?  but that is not what a foundation should be doing.  a bad idea remains a bad idea.

and why is it so hard for people to accept my opinion that if you want to go to africa, go on a wicked vacation full of beaches, safaris, museums, and sights?  there is no requirement that you visit a slum, an orphanage, or a hospital to make it worthwhile.  we don't expect tourists to canada to visit our poorest communities or our underdeveloped first nations reserves so why do we expect canadians to do similar things on their holidays abroad?  and doesn't this continue to perpetuate the same stereotypes that africa is nothing but a continent full of dirty, black kids with flies around their eyes?  and (and!) offering such a programme doesn't acknowledge that many middle and upper class residents of africans don't feel compelled to visit those communities in their backyard, so why would canadians?  and, more than anything, what right do they have to go sniffing around in someone else's backyard?  and again, for what purpose?

eesh.  the whole conversation just made me want to bang my head against a wall.  but (but!), it did make me feel good in the sense that i actually know a thing or two about this and i felt strong enough in my opinions to express them and stand by them.  and that i can make some things better, just by being a part of them even if they frustrate me at times.

and that, along with today's positive feedback, has made me feel as though the wobbly moment might almost (dare i say it?!) be coming to a close.

do gooding as gospel

when i was 18, i dated a fellow who was five years my senior and who i thought knew a thing or two about life.  i recall vividly one conversation we had where he told me that of all the people he meets, he only really 'liked' 20% of them enough to want to be friends or see again.  in my youthful naivety, i recall feeling as though that was a very callous statement to make.

and now, at the ripe old age of 29, i feel that 20% was a truly conservative estimate and the proportion of the people i meet who i genuinely want to see again socially is somewhere near 10%. 

i brought this up at a brunch i was with four other ladies this weekend and in our discussions, we agreed that as we become more certain of what we believe and our own values, it makes it easier to make decisions about people and this is completely natural .  and sometimes, you meet people whose activities or comments tip you off to the fact that you likely will not get along.

my friend, an animal lover and vegetarian, said that she couldn't be friends with someone who hunted.  there was a general mmm-hmmm-ing about this.  i followed up with the statement, 'i don't think i could be friends with someone who told me they wanted to volunteer in an orphanage in africa.'

the response?

blink.  blink.  blink, blink.

and then i had to defend my comment and give a brief explanation of why volunteering in orphanages in africa is more often than not, a bad idea. 

the blog world that i am haphazardly a part of has done a great job recently, and perhaps due to the overwhelming response and criticism of aid to haiti, of describing why voluntourism and orphanages as industry is not a terribly great idea and i won't go into the details here.*  but what was really apparent through this exchange was how i felt i needed to justify my statement and opinion to people who had relatively low levels of knowledge on international development and aid because i felt as though i sounded so cold hearted and heartless.

i spent the better part of the rest of the brunch trying to convince them that a) i knew what i was talking about and b) that i am not a horrible, awful person who thinks that the poor, black babies of africa do not deserve our good intentions.  and to be honest, i am really not sure that i was that effective.

it was one of those situations where worlds collide and i was going through the rolodex of posts i have read over the past months in shaping my argument about why holding the value against volunteering at orphanages in africa is not so different that holding a value that includes believing that hunting is wrong.

i like what Tales From the Hood has to say about why we believe that we have the 'right' to help others and the intentions behind doing it.  and Good Intentions Are Not Enough often has posts that support the name of the blog.  and these are written by professionals in the aid and development community so i know i am not alone in my judgements and opinions.  and this also doesn't mean they are necessarily the gospel for all to live by, but it was a tough situation to be in and i wish i had a better arsenal of metaphorical weapons to use when confronted to defend why i believe what i do.

* if you are really interested in my thoughts on this, leave me a comment and i will try and string them together into something articulate in the future.

the Do Something conundrum

sometimes, world's collide.

lately, i have really been struggling with people who want to get involved in addressing human trafficking and want to volunteer with my organisation.  often, it starts off with an unsolicited email requesting more information from me or an offer to take me for lunch or coffee to discuss how they can get involved.

let me offer a full disclosure here and say that volunteer management is not my strong suit. 

if i spent time responded to each email (which i do) and sitting down with each person (which i don't), i would be spending all of my time, which is already suffering from competing priorities, explaining the same things to people and convincing them not to start another ngo, not to screen the same film that has been shown in this city 4 times in the last 6 months, and not to go busting down doors and conducting their own investigations.

i believe that i have sorted this dilemma by asking volunteers to organisation a volunteer information session where i will cover all of these things in a group setting and figure out what people can offer our organisation and how we can best use their skills and passion.  but what is interesting is that i feel as i am struggling with an issue that is being felt across the development sector board.

case in point:

i recently commented on a development-focused blog, Tales From the Hood, about why someone who calls themself an Aid Worker must defend and define that to other people and yet we all accept someone's answer of Doctor when asked, what do you do?  and i know that the whole concept of Aid Worker is a misunderstood and misrepresented one, but the jist of the original post seems to link well to what i have been struggling with lately.  in a nutshell, some american dude had an idea to collect 1 million t shirts in the states and distribute them to africans.  this is a bad idea.  i won't go into the details of why this is a bad idea here, but you can browse through the blogs i have listed on this page for a lot more information on why this is a Bad Idea.

the linkage is this: why is it that simply because someone wants to do a good thing do they seem to feel as they have a right to?  i am the first to admit, i don't know the answer to this question.

but the people who want to Do Something sometimes feel that just wanting to do that something is enough to justify their actions.  and sometimes, wonderful and innovative ideas can come from this, but often, bad ideas are pushed forwarded and supported simply because isn't it great that so-and-so is doing something!

what i find interesting about all of this is that people who come to me wanting to get involved locally (which i sincerely think is great) on trafficking-related issues and how do you harness that enthusiasm and energy to make their doing something into doing something meaningful and worthwhile?

i am still working through this and luckily, i have some experienced people around me to bounce ideas off and to support me to think of creative solutions to this dilemma, but i think at its root, it is the same challenge felt when bad development ideas are supported and implemented simply because someone feels they have the right to Do Something.

and maybe they do?

what do i want to be when i grow up?

my dream job would be an expert (whatever that means) in foreign aid/development working within an academic institution so that i could a) teach, b) do qualitative research, c) write papers, and d) do speaking events where i could talk about how aid has not yet worked and work with other experts to brainstorm ways to make the field of development more effective.

in keeping with this dream job, i have added two blogs to my blogroll over there on the right, Good Intentions Are Not Enough (and they're not) and Aid Watch (whose website says, 'just asking that aid benefit the poor' and is partly written by William Easterly, who should really consider supervising my future phd.  i mean, if he knows what is best for him!).

if i ruled the world

i have had three 'run in's' lately in my jobs. and the phrase 'run in' is probably too harsh because there have been no disagreements or arguments, just situations where i want to shake sense into people so that they would do things my way thereby reducing challenges in the future.

situation 1 - there is a very eager woman who wishes to volunteer her time and energies into doing some work for a cause. we've discussed it and i know she fears that i am moving too slowly, but at the same time, my experience and my relations with law enforcement and knowledge of ethical principles of service provision makes me confident that she needs to slow down before doing unintentional damage. i have tried to explain this to her, but she just seems hellbent on moving forward.

situation 2 - i am involved in a philanthropic endeavour with my full time position and i have a colleague who i am working with on it who doesn't seem impressed that i am overcoming the initial challenges to open lines of communication and get things done. there is a chance that she feels it is her project, but i've been the one actually making things happen.

situation 3 - i am in the middle of a political fight at work. i am supposed to liaise between groups and to ensure processes are followed and implemented so that we don't open ourselves up to being sued or anyone taking legal action against us. but try convincing the people who are in the field that! cripes.

i know that i can be stubborn as all get out and that i like things to be done my way, but what happens when you genuinely believe that your way is the right way? on some things, i can take a step back and just allow the pieces to fall in time (as in situation 3), but sometimes i just wish people would listen to me so that they will stop creating more work for me!

blah. and sorry about the cryptic nature of this rather hum drum post, but even writing about work seems a bit sketchy so i am trying to keep it vague, making rather irritating reading, i am sure.

in other more positive thoughts, i am going to san francisco in 21 days!